Not so long ago in America if it wasn’t on Walter Cronkite’s news report or in the pages of the New York Times, it wasn’t news. Most of the rest of the electronic and print reporters and commentators relied on those two entities to show them what was important.Read the rest!
A person who knew something the big news operations did not, especially if their news contrasted with the way the media chieftains saw the world, was labeled as a crank and dismissed.
The cost of setting up a competing news operation was a barrier to entry only a select few could penetrate. It is so cost prohibitive to start a daily paper that former KGB General Oleg Kalugin told me that it was the only piece of the “long march through the institutions” the Russians were unable to achieve.
No more.
The recent explosive story exposing the depths some ACORN employees were willing to sink to in order to thwart “the man” is the latest example of how powerful a tool the Internet is to the little guy and gal.
With the help of local bloggers listed below I have compiled a list of the “10 Great Events in the Rise of the New Media.”
We have tried to make a list of transformative moments.The Virginia Tech shootings, the landing on the Hudson and the 7/7 Tube bombings in London were initially reported by cell phone and blog, showing the power of on-site reporting with new media, but were perhaps not seminal moments, as they would have been reported anyway, and quickly, by the mainstream media (MSM).
Monday, September 28, 2009
Great Moments in Blogging
Compiled by Jerry Agar (with a little help from yours truly):
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Relatively Speaking, Redux
[guest commentary by Paladin]
Waaaay back in the spring of this year, I posted a rather modest post about moral relativism (which had a surprising amount of traffic). Given the arrival of some new champions of moral relativism in our comment boxes, I thought I'd open the idea up again... and give the poor, overburdened (but excellent) "Abortion" thread some room to breathe!
One case in point: our honoured guest, Mr. Robert Schwartz, once wrote, in reply to our esteemed host:
That's as good a starting place as any.
Moral relativism, when taken to its logical conclusion (or applied consistently), cannot help but collapse on itself, in a sense--especially when the proponent also claims to hold to some sort of moral code. In this case: the fact that a relativist could be up-front and honest about his relativism is (while that honesty is a good thing, in and of itself) something of an "accident of the moment". Let's grant that Mr. X, a moral relativist, currently holds himself to a standard of "honesty", which we'll assume (for now) means, "I will not intentionally deceive, and/or give false information." Given the starting premise (of absolute moral relativism), I personally see nothing that would prevent Mr. X from dropping that "honesty" standard like a hot potato, should the right combination of factors/incentives move him sufficiently... and there's no assurance that Mr. X will even be "good" enough to let others know of his new-found rejection of truth-telling and honesty.
In short: if the only reason Mr. X is "honest" is that it pleases him to be so at the moment (and if there's no reason to suppose that this won't change for whatever reason, at any time), then I really can't blame anyone else for not being willing to enter into a contract with Mr. X; his honesty is "an accident of the moment", which is as fickle as would be a liar from the start.
Ironically enough, this "accidental attitude of honesty" is also only recognizable by reliance on an objective standard of truth! A true relativist would not balk at being skeptical of the very perceptions of reality of others (i.e. taking a knife and stabbing an innocent child on the street is actually murdering a real, externally-existing person, rather than being an exercise of a somewhat energetic day-dream within his head).
Question: if you embrace moral relativism, then why do you not also embrace radical relativism (e.g. solipsism--the idea that you are the only person whose existence is certain, and that all other persons/things are more-or-less persistent hallucinations, figments of your vibrant imagination, etc.)? There's no such thing as "evidence against solipsism", any more than there's evidence against "absolute moral relativism", right?
P.S. Robert, sorry about losing track of so many of your points, and (good/challenging) questions! The frenzy at work/home has subsided somewhat, but I'm still picking up a dizzying number of pieces; I'll try to get to some of your earlier comments if I can, but feel free to re-ask them if I "space out" about them for too long...
Waaaay back in the spring of this year, I posted a rather modest post about moral relativism (which had a surprising amount of traffic). Given the arrival of some new champions of moral relativism in our comment boxes, I thought I'd open the idea up again... and give the poor, overburdened (but excellent) "Abortion" thread some room to breathe!
One case in point: our honoured guest, Mr. Robert Schwartz, once wrote, in reply to our esteemed host:
Indeed: I find it mildly amusing that in a single breath you confess reluctance to strike up a contract with me due to your supposition that I am untrustworthy, yet simultaneously assert that I'm honest about my position!
That's as good a starting place as any.
Moral relativism, when taken to its logical conclusion (or applied consistently), cannot help but collapse on itself, in a sense--especially when the proponent also claims to hold to some sort of moral code. In this case: the fact that a relativist could be up-front and honest about his relativism is (while that honesty is a good thing, in and of itself) something of an "accident of the moment". Let's grant that Mr. X, a moral relativist, currently holds himself to a standard of "honesty", which we'll assume (for now) means, "I will not intentionally deceive, and/or give false information." Given the starting premise (of absolute moral relativism), I personally see nothing that would prevent Mr. X from dropping that "honesty" standard like a hot potato, should the right combination of factors/incentives move him sufficiently... and there's no assurance that Mr. X will even be "good" enough to let others know of his new-found rejection of truth-telling and honesty.
In short: if the only reason Mr. X is "honest" is that it pleases him to be so at the moment (and if there's no reason to suppose that this won't change for whatever reason, at any time), then I really can't blame anyone else for not being willing to enter into a contract with Mr. X; his honesty is "an accident of the moment", which is as fickle as would be a liar from the start.
Ironically enough, this "accidental attitude of honesty" is also only recognizable by reliance on an objective standard of truth! A true relativist would not balk at being skeptical of the very perceptions of reality of others (i.e. taking a knife and stabbing an innocent child on the street is actually murdering a real, externally-existing person, rather than being an exercise of a somewhat energetic day-dream within his head).
Question: if you embrace moral relativism, then why do you not also embrace radical relativism (e.g. solipsism--the idea that you are the only person whose existence is certain, and that all other persons/things are more-or-less persistent hallucinations, figments of your vibrant imagination, etc.)? There's no such thing as "evidence against solipsism", any more than there's evidence against "absolute moral relativism", right?
P.S. Robert, sorry about losing track of so many of your points, and (good/challenging) questions! The frenzy at work/home has subsided somewhat, but I'm still picking up a dizzying number of pieces; I'll try to get to some of your earlier comments if I can, but feel free to re-ask them if I "space out" about them for too long...
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Blogger Announces Run for Illinois House
No, I don't mean me, I'm already a candidate.
Well-known milblogger Blackfive is seeking election to an open house seat in the Illinois 41st District.
UPDATE: It's been brought to my attention that that race already had two conservative candidates, including Peter Breen, of the Thomas More Society.
Well-known milblogger Blackfive is seeking election to an open house seat in the Illinois 41st District.
UPDATE: It's been brought to my attention that that race already had two conservative candidates, including Peter Breen, of the Thomas More Society.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Another Look At Moral Relavatism
The President's buddies at ACORN offer still more advice on how to run criminal organizations, with a little counsel on how to get away with (literally!) murder thrown in:
Nadler To Introduce Bill To Repal DOMA
I'd be interested to hear from every congressional candidate in the nation, for both the House and Senate, how they would vote on this bill:
This morning, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-New York) announced he will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This law defines marriage for federal purposes and ensures that states are not forced to recognize alternate definitions. DOMA passed overwhelmingly in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate.All the staff, cast and crew here at Thoughts of a Regular Guy would like to welcome the gay marriage issue back to the national agenda for another election cycle.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, "The citizens of 39 states have worked hard to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman. DOMA ensures the integrity of our constitutional system and the will of Americans. DOMA reflects the reality that marriage provides unique benefits to individuals, children, and society which cannot be replicated by any other living arrangement.
"The Defense of Marriage Act anticipated the assault that homosexual activists would inflict upon marriage. Through DOMA, the will of the people is honored, as evidenced in the 39 states that have passed laws protecting marriage."
Shari Rendall, CWA's Director of Legislation and Public Policy, said, "Homosexual activists and their congressional supporters are making the outrageous claim that protecting marriage is a form of discrimination. But the reverse is true -- failing to protect marriage and overturning marriage laws will result in reverse discrimination against people who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman."
Sunday, September 13, 2009
A New Abortion Post
I've been having an argument with two friends of mine over on Facebook, and I'm inviting them here to carry on the debate in my combox, where there are not such limitations on length of comments as there are at Facebook.My basic premises:
- That abortion entails the intentional taking of an innocent human life.
- That the intentional taking of an innocent human life is morally wrong.
- That it is a legitimate function of government to protect innocent human life.
This is a public discussion, all are invited to take part.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Can I Live
It's probably just my impression, but is it rappers who are doing the best pro-life songs these days?
Sunday, September 06, 2009
The Butterfly Circus
[guest commentary by Paladin]
With many thanks and kudos and hat tips to Chelsea Zimmerman--an old friend of this blog whose "Reflections of a Paralytic" are (by any sane standard) a font of sanity in the mixed and muddied fields of the blogosphere: please do check out the following movie, available for free viewing online (20 min):
THE BUTTERFLY CIRCUS
The movie, a 20-minute submission for a competition at The Doorpost Film Project (which promotes films which inspire and build up, rather than degrade and tear down), stars award-winning Eduardo Verástegui ("Bella") and Doug Jones ("Pan's Labyrinth"), and debuting Nick Vujicic, who runs a mind-blowing and inspiring ministry. Seriously: go check up on Nick's site!)
To borrow a bit of text from the film's site:
And to snitch a bit of comment from Chelsea:
Well? What are you waiting for? Get moving!
With many thanks and kudos and hat tips to Chelsea Zimmerman--an old friend of this blog whose "Reflections of a Paralytic" are (by any sane standard) a font of sanity in the mixed and muddied fields of the blogosphere: please do check out the following movie, available for free viewing online (20 min):
THE BUTTERFLY CIRCUS
The movie, a 20-minute submission for a competition at The Doorpost Film Project (which promotes films which inspire and build up, rather than degrade and tear down), stars award-winning Eduardo Verástegui ("Bella") and Doug Jones ("Pan's Labyrinth"), and debuting Nick Vujicic, who runs a mind-blowing and inspiring ministry. Seriously: go check up on Nick's site!)
To borrow a bit of text from the film's site:
At the height of the Great Depression, the showman of a renowned circus leads his troupe through the devastated American landscape, lifting the spirits of audiences along the way. During their travels they discover a man without limbs at a carnival sideshow, but after an intriguing encounter with the showman he becomes driven to hope against everything he has ever believed.
And to snitch a bit of comment from Chelsea:
Life with a disability is NOT without value, hope, meaning or purpose. You must watch this film!
The writer/producer of The Butterfly Circus tells me that the film
will be up for *over a year* to be enjoyed at http://www.thedoorpost.com…
It is part of a film competition for The Doorpost Film Project which is a project designed to empower filmmakers who want to bring messages of hope to the world.
This makes me curious to see the other movies in the competition! Voting is open now through September 16. Please click on the picture above to watch and vote for Butterfly Circus. It really is a beautiful film with a beautiful message of hope and the dignity of the human person!
Well? What are you waiting for? Get moving!
Friday, September 04, 2009
Congratulations, Duggars, Yet Again!
[guest commentary by Paladin]
For those of you who haven't yet heard, the Duggar Family (see here, here, and so on, for earlier posts about them) have been blessed with child #19 (who's currently in utero, and temporarily unavailable for comment)! God's blessings upon the new blessing, and upon his/her parents and siblings! Culture of death, take that! :)
(H/T: the heroic Jill Stanek)
For those of you who haven't yet heard, the Duggar Family (see here, here, and so on, for earlier posts about them) have been blessed with child #19 (who's currently in utero, and temporarily unavailable for comment)! God's blessings upon the new blessing, and upon his/her parents and siblings! Culture of death, take that! :)
(H/T: the heroic Jill Stanek)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
