works well... tempting to act on the misperception but then you cross a line.

one time i was riding in a shiny white crown vic, tinted windows, lamplight etc... was owned by a dumbass but his friend was driving. we were in Portland off of MLK and he says "watch this", grins, and WHIPS AROUND super fast... sending all the people "chillin on the block" scattering... then we parked and got mexican food.

was probably not a good idea but damn i was 19 and i laughed. the guy who drove it would wear a button up blue shirt and cop glasses and point at people. some laughed.

the end.

Dog vs Misperception

>> ^qualm:
You haven't been here very long but in practically all of your comments your hatred for women is glaringly obvious. You are repulsive to me.


Does that change the fact that you distorted my comments? No.

Now, if you truly believe that I said drunk women who were raped without consent---when they had passed out for example---were at fault and so gave consent, then of course you would misunderstand that I am sexist... That is a long, far-fetched piece of work and glaringly ridiculous.

These are my beliefs, and try to debunk them and still consider me sexist if you like.

Men and women both have major faults. In certain cultures (Early United States of America) women were treated and classified as property. I give that a big thumbs down! In certain societies (Later in the United States of America) men are treated as jokes to be regulated as such. Big thumbs down! This is inequality on both sides and makes me sad.

A husband and wife should have equal say and responsibility. They should stick up for each other and support each other's strengths and weaknesses. It used to be that men could choke their wives whenever and for whatever reason they wanted to! Boo... Nowadays women can do the same, so long as she leaves a few bruises upon herself. Boo...

If, and only if, the man or woman is qualified, there should be equal employment opportunities for both sexes. If not, the sex not qualified should not hold the position.

See, the problem is Qualm, now others think I have issues with women because of your misperceptions. And what will they say? "He thinks its okay to rape women." Gah, I cannot have a different opinion based upon my growings up and be as right as everyone else... because that is not popular or sensational...

You tell me when I am sexist, one-on-one and reasonibly, and I will work on it if indeed I am being sexist. I have an open mind but remember, I leave the burden of proof on you.

>> ^timtoner:
>> ^gtjwkq:
Genovese Syndrome

Actually, in the just-published Superfreakonomics, they look at the Kitty Genovese case, and discover that there are a great many misperceptions, not the least of which is that people DID call the police. The first attack, a stabbing, happened out in the open, but due to the poor lighting, it seemed to be little more than a domestic dispute, and when he was challenged by a bystander, the attacker seemed to flee the scene. Genovese staggered into an enclosed area, while her attacker moved his car to get it out of sight. He then returned, and proceeded to rape and kill her with zero witnesses. The point of the chapter, I suppose, is that a great deal of scholarship relies upon the version of events first reported in the New York Times (that there were three separate attacks with over a dozen witnesses) that were later refuted by police.


Pretty interesting. I'd like to think that I'd be the one to call 911 if I was ever a witness to such an event, even before I was aware of the Genovese Case. I just think I would consider the notion that with a crowd of witnesses, most will think that someone else has already taken care of the problem.

>> ^gtjwkq:
Genovese Syndrome


Actually, in the just-published Superfreakonomics, they look at the Kitty Genovese case, and discover that there are a great many misperceptions, not the least of which is that people DID call the police. The first attack, a stabbing, happened out in the open, but due to the poor lighting, it seemed to be little more than a domestic dispute, and when he was challenged by a bystander, the attacker seemed to flee the scene. Genovese staggered into an enclosed area, while her attacker moved his car to get it out of sight. He then returned, and proceeded to rape and kill her with zero witnesses. The point of the chapter, I suppose, is that a great deal of scholarship relies upon the version of events first reported in the New York Times (that there were three separate attacks with over a dozen witnesses) that were later refuted by police.

>> ^ElJardinero:
"If anything it serves as a testament to the fact that not every person from Iran is a bomb-strapped nutbag as they are often characterized. "
... iranian suicide bombers?
Where? When?


Exactly. Therein lies the deep misperception that we in the West hold.

In fact, among the Twitter feeds that I've been following of Iranians on the streets of Tehran, many are quite concerned themselves that the Hezbollah mercenaries that Ahmadinejad has hired as riot police will unleash suicide attacks.

>> ^vairetube:
Being observant of history, it's sort of comforting to know: It's painful, but this will get sorted out in time as always.
I'm starting to understand the depth of the problem that occurs when people cannot help their misperceptions for whatever reason... the spread of real fact-based information, and free access to it, is the only way to human salvation.
Nature will take care of the rest, np!

I've begun to doubt that in this case.

Indoctrination encourages blind faith and rejection of reason. For every fundamentalist turned rationalist, there are hundreds more mindless drones spawned.

Being observant of history, it's sort of comforting to know: It's painful, but this will get sorted out in time as always.

I'm starting to understand the depth of the problem that occurs when people cannot help their misperceptions for whatever reason... the spread of *real* fact-based information, and free access to it, is the only way to human salvation.

Nature will take care of the rest, np!

>> ^thesnipe:
Since you've all seemed to sit back and roll a joint as the roast is winding down, I'll post my semisedated response, although you poor saps were hoping I smoked some (mycroftholmz), it's one of the few things that makes me sick, nice try to fill out the whole hippy vibe but everyone know what happens when you assume....
Wow where do I begin. So much material and information overload. I guess first off, does everyone in this roast have ADD? I can't process what goes through those small small minds but it must be "ooooo blue link click bahaha snipe has long hair" and somehow that's about it. I can't say I'm surprised when at the moment the video at the top this week is a gamers review series that's been going on for months.
I started to get shrills when blankfist posted something about how I use dungeons and dragons, something with a cup and a warlock in which I had no idea what in the hell he was saying. Of course it goes to reflect upon the rest of the roast team that blankfist's comment was highest voted of this roast so far.
Gorgonheap really hit it on the head though, with one scary misperception, he mentioned Hannah Montana, which shows me which music circle is he's floating in nowadays.
Jonny, you commented about how I'd like to fuck anyone that moves, I'm not sure if I should laugh or burst your bubble and reject your advances now. Sorry mate but I don't think anyone would attempt that experience.
Zeph barely hit home on the anime subject but plowed the way to a very strange and disturbing level when other posted a face of me on the wii chicks body, complementing Inuyasha with my head on kagome's face. It seems as if schmawy and a couple others have a bit too much time staring at my pictures via photoshop.
Speaking of photoshop, MG, you may want to see that military shrink after all. Granted the mastery of photoshop to make me really look like I have boobs is one thing, but it carries all kinda of baggage that may be best confined to a place with padded walls. As blankfist mentioned I also think you may want to consider a bit of help when it comes to finding colonoscopy videos.
I do work part time and as inspired by what CaptWillard told me, these comments come from a collection of crew cut wearing 9-5ers who lack the experience of anything more thrilling than "hey did you read the latest Dilbert parody?". That must make your day.
All in all I laughed my ass of for the past two days. kudos for choggie, swampy and dotdude for keeping it hilarious and anyone else I missed. Many thanks for Captwillard for MCing this affair. It was a hell of a roast, and fortunately for you roasters you won't have to strain those peabrains of yours until the next roast when I can join back on the other roasting end.

Have you ever waited in excited anticipation for a lit firework to work its century old magic only to have it fizzle out a lifeless, soggy, dud?

Thanks for the blueballs...

Since you've all seemed to sit back and roll a joint as the roast is winding down, I'll post my semisedated response, although you poor saps were hoping I smoked some (mycroftholmz), it's one of the few things that makes me sick, nice try to fill out the whole hippy vibe but everyone know what happens when you assume....

Wow where do I begin. So much material and information overload. I guess first off, does everyone in this roast have ADD? I can't process what goes through those small small minds but it must be "ooooo blue link *click* bahaha snipe has long hair" and somehow that's about it. I can't say I'm surprised when at the moment the video at the top this week is a gamers review series that's been going on for months.

I started to get shrills when blankfist posted something about how I use dungeons and dragons, something with a cup and a warlock in which I had no idea what in the hell he was saying. Of course it goes to reflect upon the rest of the roast team that blankfist's comment was highest voted of this roast so far.

Gorgonheap really hit it on the head though, with one scary misperception, he mentioned Hannah Montana, which shows me which music circle is he's floating in nowadays.

Jonny, you commented about how I'd like to fuck anyone that moves, I'm not sure if I should laugh or burst your bubble and reject your advances now. Sorry mate but I don't think anyone would attempt that experience.

Zeph barely hit home on the anime subject but plowed the way to a very strange and disturbing level when other posted a face of me on the wii chicks body, complementing Inuyasha with my head on kagome's face. It seems as if schmawy and a couple others have a bit too much time staring at my pictures via photoshop.

Speaking of photoshop, MG, you may want to see that military shrink after all. Granted the mastery of photoshop to make me really look like I have boobs is one thing, but it carries all kinda of baggage that may be best confined to a place with padded walls. As blankfist mentioned I also think you may want to consider a bit of help when it comes to finding colonoscopy videos.

I do work part time and as inspired by what CaptWillard told me, these comments come from a collection of crew cut wearing 9-5ers who lack the experience of anything more thrilling than "hey did you read the latest Dilbert parody?". That must make your day.

All in all I laughed my ass of for the past two days. kudos for choggie, swampy and dotdude for keeping it hilarious and anyone else I missed. Many thanks for Captwillard for MCing this affair. It was a hell of a roast, and fortunately for you roasters you won't have to strain those peabrains of yours until the next roast when I can join back on the other roasting end.

The interviewer completely missed the point that "misfire" was not a value term, hence the misperception that Dawkins was "demeaning" altruism.

From Six Questions for Greg Grandin on Che’s Legacy:

Forty years ago this month, Che Guevara was captured and executed as he tried to lead a guerilla insurrection deep in the Bolivian jungle. Despite questions about his sometimes violent tactics and effectiveness as a revolutionary leader, Che remains an iconic symbol—even though he’s now been dead longer than he was alive. Che’s popularity in this country might stem more from how he looks on album covers and T-shirts than from his ideas or actions, but in Latin America, Che is remembered for his willingness to stand up to the United States. Greg Grandin, a history professor at New York University, is the author of several books on American influence in Latin America, most recently last year’s Empire’s Workshop.

1. How is Che currently viewed in Latin America and how different is his image there than it is here?
There are those in the U.S. who see Che as a generic symbol of rebellion against power and some who even think seriously about his political legacy, but he is more readily available as a pop and commercial icon. His image has been co-opted, following in the tradition of Warhol’s silk-screened Mao. In Latin America, some of this banalization exists, but the popularity and understanding of Che goes well beyond that. I was living in Guatemala a decade ago when peace accords ended that country’s 36-year civil war, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Suddenly Che’s image was everywhere. One street vendor told me that during the first three months after the war ended she sold more images of Che than she did of pop stars or the Virgin Mary. So Che–who was no fan of free speech–became a symbol of exactly that in a country long repressed. Throughout the region, Che remains a multifaceted symbol of reform, embodying anything from anti-imperialist resistance to revolutionary purity. And of course it doesn’t hurt that he is so good looking—I.F. Stone said that he was the first man he had ever met who he thought not just handsome but beautiful. In recent years, a number of admirers have been elected leaders of a number of countries: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, and Argentina’s Nestor Kirchner all have embraced Che. Even more cautious reformers like Brazil’s Lula feel compelled to pay homage to his legacy.

2. How has his image evolved over the last four decades in Latin America?
His popularity has increased since his death. When he was alive, the Cuban Revolution, of which he was one of the most visible spokesmen, represented a divide between Latin America’s old, reformist, Communist Party Left, and a new, insurgent left. Today, those debates are largely the stuff of history and his appeal is practically universal save among the most hidebound. Look at Bolivia to get a sense of just how much his reputation has evolved–it was there, in the remote village called La Higuera, that Bolivian forces, aided by CIA agents, executed Che. His Bolivian expedition was a complete failure and his capture had much to do with the fact that he didn’t receive much support from either the Bolivian Communist Party nor from peasants. But today Che’s image is everywhere in Bolivia and he is particularly esteemed by that country’s powerful peasant and indigenous movement. President Morales is reported to keep a picture of him in his wallet and just last year, upon winning the presidency, he participated in an unofficial inauguration, where he claimed Che as a patron saint of indigenous rights, saying, “The struggle that Che Guevara left uncompleted, we shall complete.”

3. What do you say to those who object to this canonization of Che, claiming that he’s nothing more than a totalitarian murderer?
I’d say tell it to the millions of Latin Americans, many of them at the margins of society, fighting for a just, truly democratic world, who still find inspiration in his struggle and image. To them, there is no confusion. Do our political commissars, always on the hunt for any whiff of residual sympathy for the militant New Left, really want to dismiss those people out of hand as irrelevant or misguided? Over the last two decades, social movements inspired by Che have fought against free-market orthodoxy. Those movements are bearers of the social-democratic tradition and are seeking to advance democracy.

4. The vision Che had for Cuba and the Third World in general did not develop. How does that effect his legacy?
You could argue that the failure of the Cuban model has actually benefited Che’s legacy, which has evolved from the specific political project he was associated with. Forty years ago. Che died trying to export the armed tactics of the Cuban Revolution elsewhere. There were many reasons why the Left by that time had embraced violent insurrection as a strategy, not the least of which was the refusal of the region’s elites, fortified with support from Washington, to give up even the slightest of its privileges. Since then, the Latin American Left has evolved. Today it is profoundly peaceful and democratic, despite having adopted an icon of insurrection as its talisman.

5. What are some of the common misperceptions about Che in the United States?
My guess is that the American public knows very little about Che. If they saw the movie Motorcycle Diaries, they may have learned that he was Argentine, not Cuban. But few know that just after that tour around Latin America, where he first began to develop a pan-American consciousness, he wound up in Guatemala, a country that at the time was undergoing a profound democratic revolution. Che practiced social medicine in the country’s rural highlands, ministering to the country’s most marginal. He was in Guatemala during the CIA’s 1954 coup that ended that country’s democracy, and he saw firsthand the U.S. role in restoring a regime that would go on to kill hundreds of thousands of its citizens. He always cited his experience in Guatemala as a turning point. Prior to the coup, the Latin American left, including Communist groups, still believed it was possible to work with a country’s national bourgeois to achieve social democratic reform. Afterwards, it was increasingly difficult to do so. Che himself would go on to taunt the United States, saying “Cuba will not be another Guatemala” to justify the restrictions of civil liberties in Cuba, since it was through the subversion of the press, the Church, and independent political parties that the CIA did its work in Guatemala, and subsequently elsewhere.

6. How have American policies in Latin America following Che’s death impacted his image in the region?
Che was executed in 1967, and some of the worst interventions by Washington in Latin America were still to come. Most people are aware of the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 and Reagan’s wars in Central America in the 1980s. Less known is U.S. involvement in, or at least sanctioning of, coups in Uruguay in 1973 and Argentina in 1976. Following the demise of the Soviet Union, Washington moved away from its reliance on repressive Latin American proxies, banking instead on its ability to project its power through elections and economic pressure. This worked throughout the 1990s, as heavily indebted countries governed by centrists submitted to the command of the IMF. Over the past few years, roughly since Chávez’s landslide victory in 1998, the system has started to break down. The “Washington consensus,” as this set of policies came to be called, proved an absolute disaster. Between 1980 and 2000, in per capita terms, the region grew cumulatively by only 9 per cent. Compare that with the 82 per cent expansion of the previous two decades, and add to it the financial crises that have rolled across Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina over the past 15 years, sweeping away accumulated savings, destroying the middle class, and wrecking the agricultural sector, and you will get a sense of why Evo Morales is calling for the completion of Che’s struggle.

1600, 16 million, or 16... does it really matter? "Islamophobia" is a crutch, an exploited catch-phrase. One can't criticize non-Muslims for how Muslims are perceived (albeit, often irrationally) if you spend all your time proselytizing to the unwashed masses about said misperceptions and ignore getting your own house in order.

I don't disagree with or dismiss what Craig Murray is saying. There is no doubt fear is being stoked and used by governments (successfully here in the US) to quell dissention and breed indifference to their actions. But, all the peace, love, understanding, and tolerance won't deter some nutjob seeking martyrdom from strapping up and blowing himself, and as many innocent people as possible, to whatever kingdom come he's been programmed to believe in. Cart before the horse, it seems to me.


EDIT: First paragraph wasn't directed at you, Farhad, although it may read that way.

Comment from a liberal @ http://www.olbermannwatch.com/

I'd like to address the misperception that those of us who dislike Olbermann are automatically Bush supporters, Fox fans, Coulter fans, Limbaugh fans, Hannity fans, and/or Republicans, I'm none of the above.

I know that's the easiest assumption to make but assumptions can be grossly wrong and in my case it is. It is entirely possible to be a liberal and not like Olbermann. I think he is egotistical, stuck on himself, arrogant, and after watching his show for a few years, I grew very weary as he continued to heap insults on females, minorities, the elderly, the middle-aged, the poor, and just about any other group you'd care to name. It became apparent to me that he holds 99.9% ofthe general population in great contempt. I guess if you didn't grow up in the tri-state are, didn't attend a posh prep school or a fancy Ivy League college, and aren't young and attractive he has zero use for you.

I've grown weary of him criticizing far better journalists out of sheer envy. When Olbermann decides to venture out to hotspots around this globe, I might respect him but I think that's as likely to happen as it is that BushCo will admit they've f---ed up time and time again.

I keep reading on Kos and DU and HuffPo the notion that Keith can't be criticizied because he "speaks for us". Well he doesn't speak for me. It's obvious he has issues. And I long ago suspected that his off-air protests of how he's not a liberal, isn't political, etc. are in fact really the truth and 99.9% of what he does on air is just an act designed to win him more viewers. And I have absolutely zero respect for anyone who could be so coldly calculating just to earn a few extra viewers.


Robertson's original suggestion remains correct about p-o-s tyrant chavez. I correctly predict liberals will make up many excuses for chavez arresting his political enemies (formerly free Venezuelans) just like liberals excuse tyrant castro. Shameful.