tMoA

~ The only Home on the Web You'll ever need ~

    Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Share
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:23 am

    Always check previous pages for missed posted items ...

    _________________________________

    The Shape of Water ...






    Last edited by giovonni on Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:35 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:29 am

    Weekend Update:  The latest News

    SNL


    "Weekend Update anchors Colin Jost and Michael Che tackle the week's biggest news, including Kim Jong-un agreeing to meet President Donald Trump. Eric and Donald Trump Jr. (Alex Moffat, Mikey Day) stop by to address claims of chaos in the White House."





    The Weather ...

    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:47 am

    Gabriel Traveler

    An Awesome Bus Journey Across Bulgaria


    Published on Mar 10, 2018

    14:47 minutes

    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:59 am




    The World of Author/Writer Adrian Chen

    It’s easy to get sucked into the Internet—to spend all of your waking hours on it and then to end the day with a tweet about its pernicious effects on people. In an extraordinary piece about Megan Phelps-Roper, a woman who was brought up in the extremist Westboro Baptist Church, Adrian Chen proposed that maybe our accepted way of looking at the Internet wasn’t for everyone. “On Twitter Phelps-Roper found that it was better to take a gentler tone,” he writes, on his way to describing how she eventually found the courage, through friends she met on the Internet, to break with her church. Chen, who became a staff writer in 2016, writes often about technology, but his real subject is people. If we think about tech as machines dictating our behavior, we’re missing the real story: the essentially human way in which we live with new technologies, how we adapt and struggle and learn how they relate to what we already know. In one prescient piece, Chen describes how what we’ve come to view as the novel concept of “fake news” has roots in radio, a technology that we now think of as comfortably retrograde.

    Many readers first encountered Chen’s work when he published, in the Times, an early look at the work of what came to be known as Russian bots and trolls—in 2015, he travelled to Russia and visited the Internet Research Agency, some of whose employees were indicted by the special counsel Robert Mueller, last month. Recently, Chen returned to the subject. In a piece published a few weeks ago, he described what it felt like to be at the center of a classic Internet storm, playing the role of expert and soothsayer. “If the metrics testified to my enormous influence, why did I feel so powerless? This question illustrates the problem with treating the spread of information as primarily a numbers game.” Technology: it’s people.

    —Willing Davidson, senior editor

    ________________________________



    Radio, in its early days, was seen as a means for spreading hysteria
    and hatred, just as the Internet is today.The Fake-News Fallacy


    Old fights about radio have lessons for new fights about the Internet.

    By Adrian Chen

    "On the evening of October 30, 1938, a seventy-six-year-old millworker in Grover’s Mill, New Jersey, named Bill Dock heard something terrifying on the radio. Aliens had landed just down the road, a newscaster announced, and were rampaging through the countryside. Dock grabbed his double-barrelled shotgun and went out into the night, prepared to face down the invaders. But, after investigating, as a newspaper later reported, he “didn’t see anybody he thought needed shooting.” In fact, he’d been duped by Orson Welles’s radio adaptation of “The War of the Worlds.” Structured as a breaking-news report that detailed the invasion in real time, the broadcast adhered faithfully to the conventions of news radio, complete with elaborate sound effects and impersonations of government officials, with only a few brief warnings through the program that it was fiction.

    The next day, newspapers were full of stories like Dock’s. “Thirty men and women rushed into the West 123rd Street police station,” ready to evacuate, according to the Times. Two people suffered heart attacks from shock, the Washington Post reported. One caller from Pittsburgh claimed that he had barely prevented his wife from taking her own life by swallowing poison. The panic was the biggest story for weeks; a photograph of Bill Dock and his shotgun, taken the next day, by a Daily News reporter, went “the 1930s equivalent of viral,” A. Brad Schwartz writes in his recent history, “Broadcast Hysteria: Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds and the Art of Fake News.”

    This early fake-news panic lives on in legend, but Schwartz is the latest of a number of researchers to argue that it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. As Schwartz tells it, there was no mass hysteria, only small pockets of concern that quickly burned out. He casts doubt on whether Dock had even heard the broadcast. Schwartz argues that newspapers exaggerated the panic to better control the upstart medium of radio, which was becoming the dominant source of breaking news in the thirties. Newspapers wanted to show that radio was irresponsible and needed guidance from its older, more respectable siblings in the print media, such “guidance” mostly taking the form of lucrative licensing deals and increased ownership of local radio stations. Columnists and editorialists weighed in. Soon, the Columbia education professor and broadcaster Lyman Bryson declared that unrestrained radio was “one of the most dangerous elements in modern culture.”

    The argument turned on the role of the Federal Communications Commission, the regulators charged with insuring that the radio system served the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” Unlike today’s F.C.C., which is known mainly as a referee for media mergers, the F.C.C. of the thirties was deeply concerned with the particulars of what broadcasters put in listeners’ ears—it had recently issued a reprimand after a racy Mae West sketch that so alarmed NBC it banned West from its stations. To some, the lesson of the panic was that the F.C.C. needed to take an even more active role to protect people from malicious tricksters like Welles. “Programs of that kind are an excellent indication of the inadequacy of our present control over a marvellous facility,” the Iowa senator Clyde Herring, a Democrat, declared. He announced a bill that would require broadcasters to submit shows to the F.C.C. for review before airing. Yet Schwartz says that the people calling for a government crackdown were far outnumbered by those who warned against one. “Far from blaming Mr. Orson Welles, he ought to be given a Congressional medal and a national prize,” the renowned columnist Dorothy Thompson wrote.

    Thompson was concerned with a threat far greater than rogue thespians. Everywhere you looked in the thirties, authoritarian leaders were being swept to power with the help of radio. The Nazi Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda deployed a force called the Funkwarte, or Radio Guard, that went block by block to insure that citizens tuned in to Hitler’s major broadcast speeches, as Tim Wu details in his new book, “The Attention Merchants.” Meanwhile, homegrown radio demagogues like Father Charles Coughlin and the charismatic Huey Long made some people wonder about a radio-aided Fascist takeover in America. For Thompson, Welles had made an “admirable demonstration” about the power of radio. It showed the danger of handing control of the airwaves over to the state. “No political body must ever, under any circumstances, obtain a monopoly of radio,” she wrote. “The greatest organizers of mass hysterias and the mass delusions today are states using the radio to excite terrors, incite hatreds, inflame masses.”

    Donald Trump’s victory has been a demonstration, for many people, of how the Internet can be used to achieve those very ends. Trump used Twitter less as a communication device than as a weapon of information warfare, rallying his supporters and attacking opponents with hundred-and-forty-character barrages. “I wouldn’t be here without Twitter,” he declared on Fox News in March. Yet the Internet didn’t just give him a megaphone. It also helped him peddle his lies through a profusion of unreliable media sources that undermined the old providers of established fact. Throughout the campaign, fake-news stories, conspiracy theories, and other forms of propaganda were reported to be flooding social networks. The stories were overwhelmingly pro-Trump, and the spread of whoppers like “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President”—hardly more believable than a Martian invasion—seemed to suggest that huge numbers of Trump supporters were being duped by online lies. This was not the first campaign to be marred by misinformation, of course. But the sheer outlandishness of the claims being made, and believed, suggested to many that the Internet had brought about a fundamental devaluing of the truth. Many pundits argued that the “hyper-democratizing” force of the Internet had helped usher in a “post-truth” world, where people based their opinions not on facts or reason but on passion and prejudice.

    Yet, even among this information anarchy, there remains an authority of sorts. Facebook and Google now define the experience of the Internet for most people, and in many ways they play the role of regulators. In the weeks after the election, they faced enormous criticism for their failure to halt the spread of fake news and misinformation on their services. The problem was not simply that people had been able to spread lies but that the digital platforms were set up in ways that made them especially potent. The “share” button sends lies flying around the Web faster than fact checkers can debunk them. The supposedly neutral platforms use personalized algorithms to feed us information based on precise data models of our preferences, trapping us in “filter bubbles” that cripple critical thinking and increase polarization. The threat of fake news was compounded by this sense that the role of the press had been ceded to an arcane algorithmic system created by private companies that care only about the bottom line.

    Not so very long ago, it was thought that the tension between commercial pressure and the public interest would be one of the many things made obsolete by the Internet. In the mid-aughts, during the height of the Web 2.0 boom, the pundit Henry Jenkins declared that the Internet was creating a “participatory culture” where the top-down hegemony of greedy media corporations would be replaced by a horizontal network of amateur “prosumers” engaged in a wonderfully democratic exchange of information in cyberspace—an epistemic agora that would allow the whole globe to come together on a level playing field. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest attained their paradoxical gatekeeper status by positioning themselves as neutral platforms that unlocked the Internet’s democratic potential by empowering users. It was on a private platform, Twitter, where pro-democracy protesters organized, and on another private platform, Google, where the knowledge of a million public libraries could be accessed for free. These companies would develop into what the tech guru Jeff Jarvis termed “radically public companies,” which operate more like public utilities than like businesses.

    But there has been a growing sense among mostly liberal-minded observers that the platforms’ championing of openness is at odds with the public interest. The image of Arab Spring activists using Twitter to challenge repressive dictators has been replaced, in the public imagination, by that of ISIS propagandists luring vulnerable Western teen-agers to Syria via YouTube videos and Facebook chats. The openness that was said to bring about a democratic revolution instead seems to have torn a hole in the social fabric. Today, online misinformation, hate speech, and propaganda are seen as the front line of a reactionary populist upsurge threatening liberal democracy. Once held back by democratic institutions, the bad stuff is now sluicing through a digital breach with the help of irresponsible tech companies. Stanching the torrent of fake news has become a trial by which the digital giants can prove their commitment to democracy. The effort has reignited a debate over the role of mass communication that goes back to the early days of radio.

    The debate around radio at the time of “The War of the Worlds” was informed by a similar fall from utopian hopes to dystopian fears. Although radio can seem like an unremarkable medium—audio wallpaper pasted over the most boring parts of your day—the historian David Goodman’s book “Radio’s Civic Ambition: American Broadcasting and Democracy in the 1930s” makes it clear that the birth of the technology brought about a communications revolution comparable to that of the Internet. For the first time, radio allowed a mass audience to experience the same thing simultaneously from the comfort of their homes. Early radio pioneers imagined that this unprecedented blurring of public and private space might become a sort of ethereal forum that would uplift the nation, from the urban slum dweller to the remote Montana rancher. John Dewey called radio “the most powerful instrument of social education the world has ever seen.” Populist reformers demanded that radio be treated as a common carrier and give airtime to anyone who paid a fee. Were this to have come about, it would have been very much like the early online-bulletin-board systems where strangers could come together and leave a message for any passing online wanderer. Instead, in the regulatory struggles of the twenties and thirties, the commercial networks won out.

    Corporate networks were supported by advertising, and what many progressives had envisaged as the ideal democratic forum began to seem more like Times Square, cluttered with ads for soap and coffee. Rather than elevating public opinion, advertisers pioneered techniques of manipulating it. Who else might be able to exploit such techniques? Many saw a link between the domestic on-air advertising boom and the rise of Fascist dictators like Hitler abroad. Tim Wu cites the leftist critic Max Lerner, who lamented that “the most damning blow the dictatorships have struck at democracy has been the compliment they have paid us in taking over and perfecting our prized techniques of persuasion and our underlying contempt for the credulity of the masses.”

    Amid such concerns, broadcasters were under intense pressure to show that they were not turning listeners into a zombified mass ripe for the Fascist picking. What they developed in response is, in Goodman’s phrase, a “civic paradigm”: radio would create active, rational, tolerant listeners—in other words, the ideal citizens of a democratic society. Classical-music-appreciation shows were developed with an eye toward uplift. Inspired by progressive educators, radio networks hosted “forum” programs, in which citizens from all walks of life were invited to discuss the matters of the day, with the aim of inspiring tolerance and political engagement. One such program, “America’s Town Meeting of the Air,” featured in its first episode a Communist, a Fascist, a Socialist, and a democrat.

    Listening to the radio, then, would be a “civic practice” that could create a more democratic society by exposing people to diversity. But only if they listened correctly. There was great concern about distracted and gullible listeners being susceptible to propagandists. A group of progressive journalists and thinkers known as “propaganda critics” set about educating radio listeners. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, co-founded by the social psychologist Clyde R. Miller, with funding from the department-store magnate Edward Filene, was at the forefront of the movement. In newsletters, books, and lectures, the institute’s members urged listeners to attend to their own biases while analyzing broadcast voices for signs of manipulation. Listening to the radio critically became the duty of every responsible citizen. Goodman, who is generally sympathetic to the proponents of the civic paradigm, is alert to the off notes here of snobbery and disdain: much of the progressive concern about listeners’ abilities stemmed from the belief that Americans were, basically, dim-witted—an idea that gained currency after intelligence tests on soldiers during the First World War supposedly revealed discouraging news about the capacities of the average American. In the wake of “The War of the Worlds” panic, commentators didn’t hesitate to rail against “idiotic” and “stupid” listeners. Welles and his crew, Dorothy Thompson declared, “have shown up the incredible stupidity, lack of nerve and ignorance of thousands.”

    Today, when we speak about people’s relationship to the Internet, we tend to adopt the nonjudgmental language of computer science. Fake news was described as a “virus” spreading among users who have been “exposed” to online misinformation. The proposed solutions to the fake-news problem typically resemble antivirus programs: their aim is to identify and quarantine all the dangerous nonfacts throughout the Web before they can infect their prospective hosts. One venture capitalist, writing on the tech blog Venture Beat, imagined deploying artificial intelligence as a “media cop,” protecting users from malicious content. “Imagine a world where every article could be assessed based on its level of sound discourse,” he wrote. The vision here was of the news consumers of the future turning the discourse setting on their browser up to eleven and soaking in pure fact. It’s possible, though, that this approach comes with its own form of myopia. Neil Postman, writing a couple of decades ago, warned of a growing tendency to view people as computers, and a corresponding devaluation of the “singular human capacity to see things whole in all their psychic, emotional and moral dimensions.” A person does not process information the way a computer does, flipping a switch of “true” or “false.” One rarely cited Pew statistic shows that only four per cent of American Internet users trust social media “a lot,” which suggests a greater resilience against online misinformation than overheated editorials might lead us to expect. Most people seem to understand that their social-media streams represent a heady mixture of gossip, political activism, news, and entertainment. You might see this as a problem, but turning to Big Data-driven algorithms to fix it will only further entrench our reliance on code to tell us what is important about the world—which is what led to the problem in the first place. Plus, it doesn’t sound very fun.

    The various efforts to fact-check and label and blacklist and sort all the world’s information bring to mind a quote, which appears in David Goodman’s book, from John Grierson, a documentary filmmaker: “Men don’t live by bread alone, nor by fact alone.” In the nineteen-forties, Grierson was on an F.C.C. panel that had been convened to determine how best to encourage a democratic radio, and he was frustrated by a draft report that reflected his fellow-panelists’ obsession with filling the airwaves with rationality and fact. Grierson said, “Much of this entertainment is the folk stuff . . . of our technological time; the patterns of observation, of humor, of fancy, which make a technological society a human society.”

    In recent times, Donald Trump supporters are the ones who have most effectively applied Grierson’s insight to the digital age. Young Trump enthusiasts turned Internet trolling into a potent political tool, deploying the “folk stuff” of the Web—memes, slang, the nihilistic humor of a certain subculture of Web-native gamer—to give a subversive, cyberpunk sheen to a movement that might otherwise look like a stale reactionary blend of white nationalism and anti-feminism. As crusaders against fake news push technology companies to “defend the truth,” they face a backlash from a conservative movement, retooled for the digital age, which sees claims for objectivity as a smoke screen for bias.

    One sign of this development came last summer, in the scandal over Facebook’s “Trending” sidebar, in which curators chose stories to feature on the user’s home page. When the tech Web site Gizmodo reported the claim of an anonymous employee that the curators were systematically suppressing conservative news stories, the right-wing blogosphere exploded. Breitbart, the far-right torchbearer, uncovered the social-media accounts of some of the employees—liberal recent college graduates—that seemed to confirm the suspicion of pervasive anti-right bias. Eventually, Facebook fired the team and retooled the feature, calling in high-profile conservatives for a meeting with Mark Zuckerberg. Although Facebook denied that there was any systematic suppression of conservative views, the outcry was enough to reverse a tiny first step it had taken toward introducing human judgment into the algorithmic machine.

    For conservatives, the rise of online gatekeepers may be a blessing in disguise. Throwing the charge of “liberal media bias” against powerful institutions has always provided an energizing force for the conservative movement, as the historian Nicole Hemmer shows in her new book, “Messengers of the Right.” Instead of focussing on ideas, Hemmer focusses on the galvanizing struggle over the means of distributing those ideas. The first modern conservatives were members of the America First movement, who found their isolationist views marginalized in the lead-up to the Second World War and vowed to fight back by forming the first conservative media outlets. A “vague claim of exclusion” sharpened into a “powerful and effective ideological arrow in the conservative quiver,” Hemmer argues, through battles that conservative radio broadcasters had with the F.C.C. in the nineteen-fifties and sixties. Their main obstacle was the F.C.C.’s Fairness Doctrine, which sought to protect public discourse by requiring controversial opinions to be balanced by opposing viewpoints. Since attacks on the mid-century liberal consensus were inherently controversial, conservatives found themselves constantly in regulators’ sights. In 1961, a watershed moment occurred with the leak of a memo from labor leaders to the Kennedy Administration which suggested using the Fairness Doctrine to suppress right-wing viewpoints. To many conservatives, the memo proved the existence of the vast conspiracy they had long suspected. A fund-raising letter for a prominent conservative radio show railed against the doctrine, calling it “the most dastardly collateral attack on freedom of speech in the history of the country.” Thus was born the character of the persecuted truthteller standing up to a tyrannical government—a trope on which a billion-dollar conservative-media juggernaut has been built.

    Today, Facebook and Google have taken the place of the F.C.C. in the conservative imagination. Conservative bloggers highlight the support that Jack Dorsey, the C.E.O. of Twitter, has expressed for Black Lives Matter, and the frequent visits that Google’s Eric Schmidt made to the Obama White House. When Facebook announced that it was partnering with a group of fact checkers from the nonprofit Poynter Institute to flag false news stories, conservatives saw another effort to censor them under the guise of objectivity. Brent Bozell, who runs the conservative media-watchdog group Media Research Center, cited the fact that Poynter received funding from the liberal financier George Soros. “Just like George Soros and company underwrote the Fairness Doctrine several years ago,” he said, “this is about going after conservative talk on the Internet and banning it by somehow projecting it as being false.”

    One lesson you get from Hemmer’s research is that the conservative skepticism of gatekeepers is not without a historical basis. The Fairness Doctrine really was used by liberal groups to silence conservatives, typically by flooding stations with complaints and requests for airtime to respond. This created a chilling effect, with stations often choosing to avoid controversial material. The technical fixes implemented by Google and Facebook in the rush to fight fake news seem equally open to abuse, dependent, as they are, on user-generated reports.

    Yet today, with a powerful, well-funded propaganda machine dedicated to publicizing any hint of liberal bias, conservatives aren’t the ones who have the most to fear. As Facebook has become an increasingly important venue for activists documenting police abuse, many of them have complained that overzealous censors routinely block their posts. A recent report by the investigative nonprofit ProPublica shows how anti-racist activism can often fall afoul of Facebook rules against offensive material, while a post by the Louisiana representative Clay Higgins calling for the slaughter of “radicalized” Muslims was deemed acceptable. In 2016, a group of civil-rights activists wrote Facebook to demand that steps be taken to insure that the platform could be used by marginalized people and social movements organizing for change. There was no high-profile meeting with Zuckerberg, only a form letter outlining Facebook’s moderation practices. The wishful story about how the Internet was creating a hyper-democratic “participatory culture” obscures the ways in which it is biased in favor of power.

    The online tumult of the 2016 election fed into a growing suspicion of Silicon Valley’s dominance over the public sphere. Across the political spectrum, people have become less trusting of the Big Tech companies that govern most online political expression. Calls for civic responsibility on the part of Silicon Valley companies have replaced the hope that technological innovation alone might bring about a democratic revolution. Despite the focus on algorithms, A.I., filter bubbles, and Big Data, these questions are political as much as technical. Regulation has become an increasingly popular notion; the Democratic senator Cory Booker has called for greater antitrust scrutiny of Google and Facebook, while Stephen Bannon reportedly wants to regulate Google and Facebook like public utilities. In the nineteen-thirties, such threats encouraged commercial broadcasters to adopt the civic paradigm. In that prewar era, advocates of democratic radio were united by a progressive vision of pluralism and rationality; today, the question of how to fashion a democratic social media is one more front in our highly divisive culture wars.

    Still, Silicon Valley isn’t taking any chances. In the wake of the recent, deadly white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, a slew of tech companies banned the neo-Nazi blog the Daily Stormer, essentially blacklisting it from the Web. Responding so directly to appeals to decency and justice that followed the tragedy, these companies positioned themselves less as neutral platforms than as custodians of the public interest.

    Zuckerberg recently posted a fifty-seven-hundred-word manifesto announcing a new mission for Facebook that goes beyond the neutral-seeming mandate to “make the world more open and connected.” Henceforth, Facebook would seek to “develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us.” The manifesto was so heavy on themes of civic responsibility that many took it as a blueprint for a future political campaign. Speculation has only grown since Zuckerberg embarked on a fifty-state tour this summer to meet American Facebook users, posting photos of himself with livestock and unhealthy local delicacies. Those who think that Zuckerberg is preparing for a Presidential bid, however, should consider the emerging vectors of power in the digital era: for the man who runs Facebook, the White House might well look like a step down."


    ♦️ Source page:
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/04/the-fake-news-fallacy?mbid=nl_Sunday%20Archive%20031118&CNDID=52756157&spMailingID=13091471&spUserID=MjUxOTExODQxODQ2S0&spJobID=1360898394&spReportId=MTM2MDg5ODM5NAS2
    avatar
    mudra

    Posts : 18969
    Join date : 2010-04-09
    Age : 63
    Location : belgium

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  mudra on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:08 pm

    Angels in Heaven - Chris Rodrigues & the Spoon Lady

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLmM9kcBKs


    Love Always
    mudra
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:46 am

    And speaking of ... Suspect

    Coincidentally and oddly, i just mentioned this Stateside media blitz while in conversation with a Merseyside friend last Friday ...

    giovonni 

    _____________________________

    Via Schwartzreport

    "For some time now my wife and I have noticed the prevalence of drug ads on MSNBC, CNN, and FOX; it is a peculiarity of news channel advertising. Perhaps you have noticed this as well. All these weird drugs for illnesses you didn’t even know existed, for instance Peyronie’s disease — look it up.

    Then there are the disclaimers telling you very quickly the drug may kill you.

    The question we asked was: why are there so many drug ads on cable news? Why would anyone want to take some of these obscure drugs? Does the news audience require unusual levels of medication? Was there some deeper consideration in play?

    Here is what I think is the correct answer.  It is a nasty little story, and another example of why in the United States we do not have a healthcare system, we have an illness profit system. Why this has gone on largely  uncritiqued by media, and why America has become what I consider an uncivilized society" ...

    Stephan A. Schwartz

    ___________________________________


    The deeper reason for drug ads on television

    NoMoreFakeNews.com -  Jon Rappoport's Blog


    March 11, 2018

    "Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.

    Have you ever heard of these drugs? Otezla, Xeljanz, Namzaric, Keytruda, Breo, Cosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

    Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them?

    What’s going on here?

    The answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT DRUGS ARE BEING ADVERTISED.

    If Pharma can pay enough TOTAL money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

    Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

    Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe.

    Control the news.

    There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads:

    By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.

    Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. THIS IS LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the ONLY kind of help there is.

    The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. DRUGS ARE AS VITAL TO LIFE AS WATER OR AIR.

    But what about all those dire warnings of side effects from the drugs? By law, the companies must include them in their commercials. Well, the companies have calculated that, on balance, the stark, front-line, unending message of DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS will outweigh the warnings in viewers’ minds.

    If the television audience is nailed with the idea that they can’t escape; that their health always hangs in the balance; that dire illnesses are always waiting in the shadows to strike; that the slightest ache or pain could be a precursor to a crippling or fatal disease; and drugs are the only solution and protection—they’re going to overlook the warnings about side effects.

    ALL IN ALL, DRUG ADS ARE NEWS.

    That’s the approach. Pharma is blasting out 24/7 news asserting modern medicine’s central and commanding role in the life of every human.

    It’s a gigantic and stupendous piece of mind control, but when did that ever stop tyrants from inventing reality for the masses?

    Implicit in “ask your doctor if drug X is right for you,” is the message: “go to your doctor.” That’s the key. If the ads can put a viewer into the system, he will be diagnosed with something, and he’ll be given a drug for it.

    So the drug ads are also promotions for doctors, who are the arbiters and the decision makers. Some kind of medical need (drugs) always exists—and the doctor will tell you what it is. And all patients should OBEY. Even if, in the process, they go broke.

    Take the case of Opdivo, a drug that treats squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cost? $12,500 a month. Patients on Medicare will pay $2500 a month out of their own pockets. And the result?

    Wall St, Journal: “In the clinical study on which the Opdivo ad bases its claims, the drug extended median patient survival to 9.2 months from the start of treatment…”

    The cancer patient pays $22,500 for nine months of survival, during which the suffering continues, and then he dies.

    The ad isn’t mentioning THAT.

    The ad relies on the doctor to convince the patient to go along with this lunatic program."



    Source page:
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/the-deeper-reason-for-drug-ads-on-television/
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:53 am

    Only a matter of till the alternative community self implodes ... Nutbar


    Governments Love Conspiracy Theories... and Conspiracy Theorists ...

    Like Him !!!

    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:01 am

    Speaking of ... UhOh



    Don't Bring Me Down

    ELO


    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:37 am

    And in case you missed the latest media buzz ... Adv2  




    Church of Scientology launches TV channel

    "LOS ANGELES –  The Church of Scientology launched its own TV channel with a vow that it will be candid about every aspect of the church and its operations but isn't seeking to preach or convert.

    "There's a lot of talk about us. And we get it," church leader David Miscavige said in introducing the first night of programming Monday. "People are curious. Well, we want to answer your questions. Because, frankly, whatever you have heard, if you haven't heard it from us, I can assure you we're not what you expect."

    Founded in 1954 by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, the church teaches that technology can expand the mind and help solve problems. It has about 10 million members worldwide.

    Scientology is an "expanding and dynamic religion and we're going to be showing you all of it," he said, from the "spiritual headquarters" in which he was standing — a Florida-based, corporate-looking building— its churches around the world and a behind- the-scenes look at its management.

    The channel also will explore the life and philosophy of Hubbard, whom Miscavige called "a true-to-life genius."

    With all that the channel intends to present, he said, "let's be clear: We're not here to preach to you, to convince you or to convert you. No. We simply want to show you."

    The first hour offered a slickly produced taste of the series to follow from an in-house studio, including "Meet a Scientologist," ''Destination Scientology" and the three-part "L. Ron Hubbard: In His Own Voice." The channel is available on DIRECTV, AppleTV, Roku, fireTV, Chromecast, iTunes and Google Play.

    Miscavige didn't directly address critics, but Scientology doesn't lack for them. Several high-profile projects have investigated the church's alleged abuses of former members, including actress Leah Remini's A&E docuseries "Scientology and the Aftermath" and Alex Gibney's Emmy-winning documentary, "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief."

    Instead, the channel's debut offered interviews with church members who touted Scientology's rewards, showed off its impressive facilities in cities including Melbourne, London, Tokyo and throughout the United States and its work with other churches and community groups.

    Viewers were introduced to ethnically diverse members including blue-collar workers, professionals and business owners. Miscavige noted that the church's followers include "some of the most well-known artists and celebrities in the world."

    He didn't name them, but Tom Cruise and Kirstie Alley are among long-time Scientologists.

    In one segment, members boasted of the church's technological achievements, including development of the "E-meter" that reads "mental energy" and is used by an auditor to diagnose and improve people's lives. An auditor, as explained in an on-screen caption, is "one who listens.""


    Source page:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/12/new-scientologytv-will-put-members-founder-in-spotlight.html
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:52 am

    Breaking News ...

    President Trump fires Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ...




    To be replaced by current CIA Director Mike Pompeo...

    Elevates Gina Haspel to CIA Director, the first time the post has been held by a woman. The career officer who had a clandestine career and was its deputy director.


    Read more:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5495087/Trump-FIRES-Rex-Tillerson-secretary-state.html#ixzz59dPhTtcF


    Last edited by giovonni on Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:23 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:06 am

    Meanwhile ...

    Via - Germany's DW News - a publicly funded German broadcaster ...

    Russia votes: winners and losers under President Putin


    Published on Mar 13, 2018

    "On Sunday more than 100 million Russian voters are going to the polls in presidential elections. Vladimir Putin is expected to glide to a comfortable win, extending his 18-year rule."

    What do you need to know about the Russian presidential election:
    http://p.dw.com/p/2u5sE

    4:27 minutes

    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:27 am




    Is THIS Japan?!?

    "The eye of the camera is determining what you see and what you do not see, whether you know it or not. Don't let the media frame your understanding of the world...or at least be conscious of the fact that they are framing the world for you. Oh, and enjoy these images of the sunny climes of western Japan from The Corbett Report's 2009 Video Archive DVD!"

    corbettreport

    Published on Mar 14, 2018

    7:02 minutes

    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:47 am

    Speaking of ...


    The Camera Never Lies


    Michael Franks





    Last edited by giovonni on Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:03 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:48 am



    “I am your new teacher, DEFENDER-BOT-5000, but you can call me Mr. D.”
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:13 am

    The realization ...

    “A human being is a part of the whole called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
    ― Albert Einstein


    The Event
      

    Allison Coe with Lisa M Harrison

    Published on Mar 14, 2018

    "Today Allison Coe and I had an opportunity for an impromptu chat during a Lisa M. Harrison
    members call which she allowed me to record" ...

    A Little About Allison Coe

    "Prior to being a Quantum Healing Hypnosis practitioner I was an Accountant  - and "closeted" Spiritualist and Counselor. But, after 11 years at the same company it was pretty obvious I was no longer in the closet. I was out and about and had no shame in my game. I loved trying to raise the vibration around me, interpreting coworkers dreams, having private counseling sessions in my office, meditating and spreading love anywhere and everywhere. But it was nearly unbearable to be in the corporate environment, and almost impossible for me to do the job I was being paid to do - Accounting. Needless to say, it was time for a change - and my employers felt the same way. I was happily laid-off in November 2014. Since that day I have been able to be my authentic self on a full-time basis: study my areas of interest in Metaphysics, Ascension, Past Lives, Parallel Lives, the hidden language of Dreams, and Ancient Secret Knowledge. And of course, one of my greatest joys - learning, studying, and practicing the Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique.

    My goals in life are simple:

    Be Spiritually Awake

    Inspire

    Spark

    & Free Others

    I started Soul Focus Hypnosis because one of the best ways for me to achieve these goals is to offer the Quantum Healing Hypnosis service to anyone and everyone. It's time to really put myself out there, be vulnerable, and grow from that vulnerability. My own QHHT sessions, as the client, have given me a new lease on life. The sessions gave me purpose and clarity, and showed me how to incorporate my passions into my career. My sincerest wish is to serve others and offer them that same clarity, relief, joy, and purpose.

    The years I've spent engrossed in metaphysical, spiritual, and esoteric studies have all led to this work. All of the teachings, no matter the source, share a common thread: we are infinite beings who chose to come here to this place at this time because we knew we were strong enough to handle it, to learn our lessons and make a difference. Our thoughts and feelings create the world around us. We are connected to all that is. We are energy, we are vibration, we are love, we are the Universe manifested as human beings in this life. And we have amnesia...

    Please, come with me on a journey through time and space, to remember what you have forgotten"

    Read more about Allison here:
    http://www.soulfocus-hypnosis.com/

    35:44

    avatar
    Carol
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 23315
    Join date : 2010-04-07
    Location : Hawaii

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  Carol on Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:10 pm

    SPACE-FARING IDENTICAL TWIN’S DNA CHANGED AFTER PROLONGED SPACE ...

    https://gizadeathstar.com/2018/03/space-faring-identical-twins-dna-changed-after-prolonged-space-stay/

    This carries with it certain implications, all of them rather breathtaking when one thinks about them a moment, for there are three basic possibilities that this implies. The first is that this "space gene" entered the human DNA at some point during its evolutionary development, i.e., it might have entered the code very early and in some other species, and been handed down since then. As such, one might expect it to occur in other, non-human species, which could then be tested for similar results. Depending on where in the "taxonomical tree" one looked, one might be able to pinpoint where and more importantly, when this occurred. In short, one might be looking at a kind of genetic confirmation of the panspermia idea entertained by some scientists, namely, that life was seeded onto Earth from outer space. The second hypothesis is a more narrowed version of this. Imagine, for a moment, that geneticists were able to isolate this "space gene" but discovered that it only occurs in higher primates, or indeed, only in close human ancestors such as Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon man. If that were the case, then it would indicate our two last implications, namely, that someone from "out there" at some point in human evolutionary history mingled their "stuff" with our "stuff", and the "space gene" has been passed down ever since. One need only recall the biblical tales of Nephilim, or the Mesopotamian tales of the Annunaki, to see how such a thing might have occurred.

    And then, of course, there's the final theory or implication that, at some point in the mists of human High Antiquity, we came from "out there", or explored "out there," and the genetic response to this established itself in human DNA.

    Any one of these three possibilities give one pause as to why NASA would suspect the existence of a "space gene" and emphasize the importance of that question, why did they suspect it in the first place?

    And yes, my bet is that quietly and secretly, they were more concerned about the implications of those ancient texts and hence of the latter two implications, than anything else, given the indications NASA itself uncovered in its explorations of our celestial neighbors like the Moon and Mars that there might be indications of structures, and hence, of some sort of intelligent life on those planets in the distant past.


    _________________
    What is life?
    It is the flash of a firefly in the night, the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset.

    With deepest respect ~ Aloha & Mahalo, Carol
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:23 am

    Yes indeed Carol ...  Thubs Up

    And thanks for posting this curious item here ...

    An example of the MSM 's new (what i'm now calling)


    "Subtle Disclosure"
    UFO2

    sub·tle
    ˈsədl/
    adjective
    adjective: subtle; comparative adjective: subtler; superlative adjective: subtlest

    (especially of a change or distinction) so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.
    "his language expresses rich and subtle meanings"
    synonyms: fine, fine-drawn, nice, hair-splitting
    "subtle distinctions"
    (of a mixture or effect) delicately complex and understated.
    "subtle lighting"
    synonyms: understated, muted, subdued; More
    delicate, faint, pale, indistinct
    "subtle colors"
    making use of clever and indirect methods to achieve something.



    Scott Kelly, left, and his identical twin brother Mark Kelly


    Last edited by giovonni on Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:38 am

    And speaking of soft verses hard ... wink/ Wink



    From Jeff Berwick – Host of TheAnarchast


    Adam Kokesh versus Larken Rose on Using The Political Process To Get Rid of Politics



    Description

    Anarchast is your home for Anarchy on the internet.

    To us, Anarchy means freedom.  The desire to live without a violent, coercive State.  Anarchy is peace, love and prosperity.  Free markets.  And, power to the people.

    Published on Mar 15, 2018
    Anarchast Ep.407

    Larken Rose vs Adam Kokesh great debate on Anarchast. Topics include: debating the usefulness of using the political system to further the cause of Anarchism, democracy is inherently bogus, is any degree of statism acceptable, Ron Paul is at least a voluntarist, declaring the federal government of no authority, a practical way out of statism, people waking up en-mass, does the president have the power to remove the post of president, the Libertarian takeover of the libertarian party, political authority is fake and illegitimate, principal vs pragmatism...
    58:03 minutes

    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:50 am

    “Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.” ...  Oooyeah 1

    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:10 am

    I love items like this ...
    You just can't make it up ... The Winner


    From The Siberian Times

    Plane loses its $368 million cargo of gold, platinum and diamonds on takeoff ...

    Read the story here >
    http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/plane-loses-its-368-million-cargo-of-gold-platinum-and-diamonds-on-takeoff/

    avatar
    mudra

    Posts : 18969
    Join date : 2010-04-09
    Age : 63
    Location : belgium

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  mudra on Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:12 pm

    giovonni wrote:I love items like this ...
    You just can't make it up ... The Winner


    From The Siberian Times

    Plane loses its $368 million cargo of gold, platinum and diamonds on takeoff ...

    Read the story here >
    http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/plane-loses-its-368-million-cargo-of-gold-platinum-and-diamonds-on-takeoff/




    Huge Grin

    Love Always
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:22 am

    There's lots of depressing things going on in the news lately ... Crying or Very sad
    But frankly - i prefer to post lighter items ...

    One of my fav's Sebastian Maniscalco:   Lolerz

    My Dad Sells My Book At His Hair Salon - CONAN on TBS


    5:05 minutes





    The Evil Eye ...


    1:28 minutes

    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:21 am

    More than strangers in the night ...




    Humans bred with this mysterious species more than once, new study shows

    "We rarely portray Neanderthals, our close relatives, as telegenic. Museum exhibits give them wild tangles of hair, and Hollywood reduces them to grunting unsophisticates. Their skulls suggest broad faces, tiny chins and jutting brows. But to mock Neanderthals is to mock ourselves: Homo sapiens had lots of sex with Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthal genes supply between 1 percent and 4 percent of the genome in people from homelands on several continents, from Britain to Japan to Colombia" ...

    Read the rest:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/03/15/humans-bred-with-this-mysterious-species-more-than-once-new-study-shows/?utm_term=.49ba96084db0
    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:11 am

    TGIF ... cheers


    Trump to Robert Mueller


    James Corden w/ Shaggy


    avatar
    giovonni

    Posts : 2807
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Location : The Great Northwest

    Re: Gio's Cosmic Emporium

    Post  giovonni on Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:23 am

    For your inspection and review ... study

    James Howard Kunstler - The Geography of Nowhere

    From LegaliseFreedom1



    Published on Mar 16, 2018

    James Howard Kunstler discusses his book 'The Geography of Nowhere – The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape'. First published in 1994 but sadly more relevant than ever, 'The Geography of Nowhere' traces America's evolution from a nation of Main Streets and coherent communities to a land where every place is like no place in particular, where the cities are dead zones, and the countryside is a wasteland of cartoon architecture and parking lots.

    In elegant and often hilarious prose, Kunstler depicts America's evolution from the Pilgrim settlements to the modern car-centric suburb in all its ghastliness, adding up the huge economic, social, and spiritual costs that the U.S. is paying for its gas-guzzling lifestyle. It is also a wake-up call for citizens to reinvent the places where we live and work, and to build communities that are once again worthy of our affection. Kunstler proposes that by reviving civic art and civic life, we will rediscover public virtue and a new vision of the common good. “The future”, he says, “will require us to build better places, or the future will belong to other people in other societies.”

    'The Geography of Nowhere' has become a touchstone work in the decades since its initial publication, its incisive commentary giving voice to the feeling of millions of Americans that their nation's suburban environments are ceasing to be credible human habitats. We examine what has changed during the intervening years and ask, in the shadow of looming political, social, economic, and environmental crises, whether anything worthwhile might be salvaged from the wreckage that America's suburban sprawl must inevitably become.

    http://kunstler.com/

    1:16:01 minutes


      Current date/time is Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:49 am