Why waste your time? Bill O'Reilly is a jackass and a half. He's got about as much common sense as anybody else who belongs in the nut house.

Actually, I couldn't put him on that high of a pedestal as I feel that Britney Spears is much more down to earth these days than Bill O'Reilly.

Note from MJ: Hey Clint, unfortunately O'Reilly is viewed by many as an authority and has millions of viewers. For those who don't have enough time to pay attention to other news sources it will be easy for them to take everything he says as Truth.

I wasn't aware of the debate. I'd like to see it. Do you know of anywhere online that it is available for viewing?

Note from MJ: Hey Ryan, it wasn't a formal debate, but an appearance of Maher on O'Reilly where they debated the issues. I'd love this exchange to show up on youtube, though, as it is a great example of how easily disinfo is flung in the mainstream media.

Hey folks, this is Steve from www.oreilly-sucks.com, here is what I wrote about it.

O'Reilly Lied About Source of Bill Maher Stats on Iraq Deaths

3-8-07 -- O'Reilly had Bill Maher on the Factor tuesday night, during the interview Bill Maher said 600,000 people have died in Iraq, O'Reilly said that's a lie put out by a far left website.

MAHER: First of all...
O'REILLY: And those of us who really know what the situation is go, it's just another dopey statement. Go ahead.
MAHER: I don't know if that's factually true.
O'REILLY: It is.
MAHER: I don't know if it's factually true. You don't know that either, Bill.
O'REILLY: Sure I do. It's the United Nations' own statistics.
MAHER: Well, I read a statistic that 600,000 Iraqis were...
O'REILLY: That's from a far left web site. Go with the United Nations. You're a big U.N. guy. You love the U.N. Go with them.

Wrong again Billy. As usual you just make it up as you go along, it's not from a far left website at all. A team of Iraqi physicians and American epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins did a study that says 655,000 people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003.

Of the total 655,000 estimated deaths, 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study.

The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. And the findings are being published online by the British medical journal the Lancet.

Johns Hopkins Iraq Study

Note: The U.N. stats O'Reilly is talking about claim 50,000 Iraqis have died violently, as of June 2006. But many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths. The Johns Hopkins study was done in Iraq, by Iraqi physicians who are there, so they know how many people have actually died.

It's funny how O'Reilly, who says the U.N. is a joke, that they do nothing, and you should not believe anything they say, suddenly tells people to believe them when it fits his agenda.

NOTE FROM MJ: Great stuff, Steve!

Would you be so honest about disinformation if the story were run on CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc.? Or is there a little "disinformation" being intentionally spread by your comments to deflect the truth of the outright lies and misinformation that is so prevelent in mainstream media? Somehow I think I know the answer to that question. I doubt you would be so willing to send an email message to your list exposing the greater truth if it did not fit your personal agenda. There is disinformation going on here ... its just not isolated to an television interview, the disinformation electrons are flowing fast and furious ... Greg

NOTE FROM MJ: Greg, actually ... No. My personal agenda is not a political one. You're quite right that there is media bias from all sides of the political spectrum, and from all news sources. Consider for a moment that your assumptions about me may be incorrect and that this particular case of disinformation, on it's own, deserves a look. If you want to submit others from news sources that don't support your world view, please send them!

When you state,"How can we make good decisions when our model of reality is corrupted with untruth?" It reminds me of military strategist John Boyd and his groundbreaking "OODA (Observation,Orientation,Decision,Action) Loop." Wikipedia him by name and then Google him and "OODA Loop." Very stimulating stuff for the entrepreneurial mind. Regards Bill O'Reilly: That jerk is media thug and deserves to confronted at every turn. Good for you for speaking out.

NOTE FROM MJ: Nice!

So you got your information from The Washington Post? Well, duh! Of COURSE THAT would be CORRECT, RELIABLE, VIABLE and extremely NON- BIASED, now wouldn't it?

NOTE FROM MJ: Sherry, do your own research about the report. Either way it was certainly not a report from a "far left website" and was an actual epidemiological study from a credible institution. Check it out :-)

Hi Mark,
I believe that the problem is not Bill, but his employer, Rupert Murdoch. More than alowing poor reporting, he seems to encourage it.
We have the same problem here in Australia with News Ltd and channel 7. The news is manipulated by opinionated readers favouring John Howard and the Bush administration. They can do no wrong.
The reporting is so unbalanced that anything negative isn't often reported or is played down, and anything positive is pumped up out of proportion.
That goes for the war, Bush and Howard.
Someone needs to tell Murdoch we don't care what he wants to see happen or what he thinks we should think, all we want is the news facts persented in a balanced way so we can make up our own minds.

I did not see the conversation you speak of although I do watch O'Reilly occasionally. As to the figures mentioned on the deaths there is no doubt with the car bombs etc going on that the toll is much larger than reported inless it fits someone's agenda. It is a fact that there is a lot of psychological warfare doing on in the press and on the internet, I am sure with your background in military intelligence that you recoginize it. As my father taught me, he was a career military man, during the vietnam war you should exercise due diligence in all reports that you read and hear, The spin and disingenous use of
the press in passing on this type of disinformation to the public has me worried about the future od freedom in our country and the world. It seems all the public information sources
spin it to suit their own purposes and agendas. Add to this the fact that most people do not make any efort to check on the reported facts leaves them open to to manipulation.

NOTE FROM MJ: David, you're exactly right. Accepting the information without question makes us quite ripe for it.

I believe O'Reilly probably made an honest mistake like we all can. I think he just "bristles" when he is on with Bill Maher because they are so opposite and tend to tangle with each other. Over the years that I have watched The O'Reilly Factor and other FoxNews shows, I have found them very reliable and concerned with presenting both sides of issues, as evidenced by the guestd they have on and invite to shows. There are some, not all, politicians who won't come to a FoxNews spot because they don't want their views challenged and that's not good. I totally diagreee with positions that some guests take, but do respect them for showing up. You can check the archives for who has shown up and who hasn't. It's an interesting study.

NOTE FROM MJ: Pastor Rob, yeah - in my opinion Maher is just as biased as O'Reilly. I don't find any of the sources, left or right, unbiased. As for politicians who won't show up on Fox, it is altogether possible they are concerned that Fox will endeavor to spin the way they appear in a negative way. It stands to reason given that "fair and balanced" is actually just a tagline and not a genuine editorial policy :-)

I guess I'll be the disagreeable one here. Mark, while I have great respect for your pioneering work in marketing and business, I have to wonder why you've decided to go down this political road. Your followers and readers look to you for cutting edge thoughts and tactics concerning marketing and business - not politics. I think that you probably know that you are risking alienating those on your list who happen to disagree with you on this subject (politics).
I for one (and I hope I'm not the only one), disagree with your apparent political slant and I feel somewhat disappointed that you chose to air that slant to a list that looks to you for marketing guidance.
Let us just suppose for a moment that your 655,000 figure is correct (which I don't believe for a second) how many more thousands of totally innocent people have been and would have been slaughtered at the hand of Saddam? Oh I know that we don't have those hard figures, but why not? - perhaps because the Bathist regime would never release those figures for the world to see and again why not? - perhaps it's because they didn't have political axe to grind. It is obvious the only reason these numbers would even be released is so that leftists like Bill Maher can feel validated.
Let's keep it to marketing, publicly anyway, - your brilliance in that arena is second to none. As for the politics let's argue that over a beer sometime.
I'd hate to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" but if I have to sift through political biases to get the really good stuff, I'll just tune out altogether (and doubt I'm alone).

Joshua Immel

NOTE FROM MJ: Hi Joshua, thanks for the feedback. If you've been following me for the last couple years you'll know I'm talking less about marketing and more about personal development and global change (check out Simpleology and the "Constructs"). I haven't hidden this fact at all. Further, I'm not going down a political road here - only talking about the power and danger of disinformation. Whether the report is correct or not, O'Reilly's characterization of it was not. Rather than dismiss it by rubbishing the source (inacurately), why not discuss the reality of it? The fact is, the study was conducted by some rather credible people. And if true, the deaths we caused were more than those caused by Saddam. Not that I'm a fan of Saddam ... But it might also be interesting to note that the US was a huge supporter of Saddam right up until the Gulf War - while we knew he was committing the crimes he was later hung for. Try to look at this as a study of the nature of information and not a political statement. I don't see how pointing out a case of disinformation and correcting it reveals a "slant" - pay attention and you might see I will point out disinformation from all sides of the political spectrum.

Hate to break it to you Mark, but as I'm sure you already know, Bill O'Reily will never admit that he's wrong but will in fact say that it's NOT what he said. Or possibly turn the blame on you. While he must be corrected every time he flat out lies, I don't think he'll be around forever.

Problem is, when he's gone somebody else will step up to take his place.

Mark,

If anyone is out there giving disinformation, I'd look in the mirror. I don't know where you get your information but I think you and a lot of others have just believed everything they hear from the likes of Dan Rather, Bill & Hillary Clinton etc. O'Reilly at least is willing to go public with what he believes before the viewers of his number 1 rated Cable show.

NOTE FROM MJ: Paul, Rather and the Clintons are hardly "the mirror" for me (I'm actually quite against Mrs. Clinton's nomination - or that of any of the existing candidates for that matter). Just because I point out something O'Reilly does doesn't make me on the side of those on the other end of his political spectrum. Try to take this out of the illusory left/right view and maybe you'll get the real point.

I am really getting tired of all these people who disagree with facts - yet do not show ANY research or attribution for their comments. Because you cited the Washington Post - automatically the unthinking cite you for bias. Where is their information for a different reality? Saddam was under control, and no longer killing hoards - unlike us, under the present regime, taking our constitutional rights and shredding them for the benefit of their corporate cronies, using our young people as cannon fodder, and spending our grandchildren's money to support their form of corporate welfare. Wake up! Research and read the facts - and stop spouting the right-wing talking points people!

I am glad you did point that out Mark! Disinformation is everywhere, and it really irks me when it is intentionally put out to serve an entities personal agenda.

I don't think anyone here should be criticizing Mark for his controversial posts. He does keep his blog very separate from Simpleology and the Live learning events which do not interfere with his political opinions or ideas, so no-one is forcing you to read his blog. Besides that, you should know by now that he posts controversial posts from time to time, and you could've quit reading 10-15 posts ago if it concerns you that you might be corrupted by his alternate views.

Isn't this the Atomic Mind Bombs? Aren't they here to question and challenge the way you see the world, perhaps bringing you to a new paradigm of thinking, maybe even one that serves you better.

There is misinformation in very small forms, and there is misinformation in very large forms. Just don't believe everything you see or hear. I tend to research things myself, and I'll find a whole spectrum of opinions and information on just about any topic I research online. Dare I say, that even the interpretations of the Bible are ripe with misinformation many times and contradictory views from one denomination to the next, and from one person to the next even within the same denomination.

We all have different perspectives, different intentions, and different agendas. If something doesn't quite sound right, think for a moment what a person might have to gain by stating their supposedly correct facts.

NOTE FROM MJ: Hey J, you get the point - exactly. But I can't fault anyone for automatically thinking I'm biased. I got the same thing when I pointed out that communism killed 100,000,000 people ;-)

So Mark, will you be calling the scientists on spreading disinformation?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece

NOTE FROM MJ: Mike, nah ... See, this is a more legitimate way of disputing it. O'Reilly didn't state opinions or fight the science. He just flatly made an inaccurate statement about the report. A simpler way to discredit it. As for calling out the scientists, I don't think that's warranted. Just because some other scientists dispute the report doesn't mean we should dismiss it, either. The report could be wrong. So could its critics. The only *definitely wrong* here was O'Reilly's disinformative manner of discrediting the report. If he had debated the science of the report, he would have had my full respect - regardless of the outcome - as long as it were done fairly.

Mark-

I just wrote an article (unrelated) about obtaining good information in order to make good choices. When the media speaks, or even when you see something in print, you can't simply take it for fact. We must continue to do our own homework, our own research, to make good informed decisions.

If something is, in fact, true, when presented otherwise, you are correct to give that news.

Vicki Zerbee
http://searchwarp.com/swa138795.htm

I'm a Libertarian and wish both the left and right would shut the hell up, but if Bill O'Reilly is making a mistake with the 600,000 dead in Iraq then I think it was probably an honest mistake...and that is coming from someone that definitely does not always agree with him, but I do think the guy is real and have found that he normally gives people a fair shake.

I saw that interview with Bill Maher and even though I don't always agree with Maher, I still think he has a brilliant mind. However, I've seen Maher interviewed by lots of people before and the one big difference with that interview was that you could see that Maher respects O'Reilly.

Also, I would never hold the Washington Post up as anything close to being a credible source.

The oreillysucks.com person has no credibility with me either (I've seen your site) because he is obviously into partisan politics. How can I say that? Well, why didn't you start a rathersucks.com, or brokawsucks.com, or jenningsucks.com? Enough said. On the other hand, I think its pretty smart to be piggy backing on O'Reilly's name!

In retrospect, I am one of those that does not think we ever should have gone in that god forsaken part of the world where women have no rights and insanity is a way of life because a large percentage of the population is made up of religious fanatics that have chosen to (or were brainwashed as children) to let go of the one thing we know of conclusively that separates us from animals...and that is our ability to reason.

In fact, IF Bush was sincere in his desire to protect the U.S. from terrorists then we would have been on a Manhattan type project towards energy independence the day AFTER 911...and our borders would be protected. He has done neither and has turned out to be the biggest spender of OUR tax dollars we've ever had too. Bush conservative? Please! Certainly not a fiscal conservative which is all I want out of our politicians.

Back to the 600,000 dead in Iraq... How do any of us really know what we know? No really. Please think about that before re-acting to some innate knee jerk right wing...OR...fuzzy thinking leftist perspective.

NOTE FROM MJ: Great post, Stephen. You're right - we don't know. But the study deserves further examination, not dismissal based on innacuracy. No one can know what was in O'Reilly's heart, so it's impossible to know his intentions, but I would have prefered him to be more honest about what he knew and didn't know. He certainly did *seem* quite quick (and eager) to dismiss it, and dismiss it with disinformation. You're right that someone who is against the war (that doesn't make them a leftist, by the way - there are anti-war people on the left and the right - just look at Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com) may be more likely to accept the report as factual.

Hi Mark,

First I wanted to commend you on the tactful way you expressed your views/disagreement with Bill O'Reilly . That to me says alot. It shows you have character and integrity. It's sad when one has to stoop to behavior that belongs on an Elementary school playground in order to get a point across.

Secondly, I believe seeking and finding the truth is paramount. But sadly, it's not always that simple, at least not for the media. It seems alot of what comes out is an attempt to create an aura of sensationalism in order to achieve higher ratings.

My satelite connection only provides me with Fox news, so obviously I do watch it to keep up to date on many issues. But that is not to say that I don't seek out other news sources as well, primarily from the internet. Again in an attempt to seek truth and well rounded opinions.

I think the lesson here is that we all need to be "responsible" when it comes to what we hear or read in the news. Not to sound too jaded, but like the saying goes, you can't believe everything you read/hear. And that goes for both sides of the fence.

Yours in success,

Mellisa McJunkin, Digital Information Broker

NOTE FROM MJ: Well said, Mellisa. And thanks for the kind words.

Wonder if he recants? Hey maybe you will be talked about live on the show? Lies plague our society, damning the children of the future, leaving scars of disinformation, and scandal at every turn. You control marijuana yet you let the oil tycoons rule the world! Media disinformation is a political debacle, fueled by political trash, enhanced by ratings, sprinkled with razzel dazzel, and quite amusing to say the least.

NOTE FROM MJ: Josh, I'd love to be talked about on his show - even though I suspect he'd rubbish me. Even more I'd love to appear live. I think I wouldn't be asked back, though ;-)

It seems that MJ and Bill O'Reilly have agendas from my point of view. Don't we all? Wikipedia seems to give viewpoints from varying sources, which appear to have balance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

I believe that you need to be able to look objectively if you really WANT to learn, otherwise you are just trying to persuade others to your point of view. In all things, consider the source.

Ed

NOTE FROM MJ: Ed, you're quite right. We all have agendas, indeed. Some reading this may have thought my agenda was a political one (anyone who knows me knows that calling me "far left" is comical), but it was an ontological one.

It seems that over the years, Mr. O has been very fast and loose with a lot of facts. I loved it when he tried to get his fox news buddy Shepard Smith to join him in saying things were not so bad after hurricane K hit New Orleans and Mr. Smith would have none of it.

NOTE FROM MJ: Hey TLS, yep I saw that when it was happening live - if it weren't so tragic it would have been funny.

I just wish to say I am glad I cut the cord to my TV some years ago and stay away from the media. Now don't get me wrong but I do not have the timeto waste especially after hearing of things like this makes you wonder who is telling what truth? How much of it is made up? Or in that persons personal interest only? Now I do rent a good movie here and there and put my TV to some use once in a while but the time saved not watching junk I feel even more tonight is well saved.

Expect Miracles...
Shane Belceto
PersonalDEvelopmentSuccess.net

The real point is O'Reilly dissing the report out of hand, right? Ok, FoxNews is at least as accurate as any of the other news sources. Maher is at least as big a disinformation spreader as O'Reilly, so let's be fair here.

O'Reilly and Fox are interesting because they're a nice counter to the drivel heard on the other networks. Whether Fox's drivel is more accurate is another argument.

Iraqi dead: Now the UN, which doesn't have any love for the US or the Iraq war, and has not the slightest interest in sugar coating anything that might be seen as pro-US, says 50,000. The other group says 600,000+. It seems to me the the most honest conclusion is that we don't have the foggiest notion of how many people have died in Iraq (from all causes.)

Now, if the UN report is the better estimate, then the other is disinformation. Guess which report the left will choose to trumpet? If the Hopkins report is the better estimate, then the UN report is disinformation. Guess which the right will choose to support?

An aside - how come no one mentions that the Soviet Union provided Iraq/Hussein with 50-100x the weapons than the US did?

Aside #2: depending on who you ask, Hussein killed from 300,000 to 2,000,000 of his own people.

Now, since it can be argued that we haven't the foggiest notion of how many people died in Iraq, over the last four years, due to all causes, just HOW do we go about getting accurate info?

And why is everything that the soldiers report, about the situation in Iraq, completely ignored?

MJ: I do appreciate the fact that you said O'Reilly was inaccurate, not that he was a liar. He might actually believe what he said which means he isn't a liar and that he isn't, deliberately, spreading disinformation. Heck, Mahar may even believe the stuff that HE says.

Lastly: The Washington Post, like the NY Times and other 'reputable' sources has come under a lot of withering, well deserved, criticism over the last few years regarding the reliability of it's reporting. I hope that you include papers like the "Investor's Business Daily" along with the rest of your reliable sources.

NOTE FROM MJ: Greg, great comment. If O'Reilly had spoke with as much honesty and clarity (and not demagoguery) I wouldn't have had a problem. You're very right that there is a tremendous amount of bias in news from all sides. However, O'Reilly was attacking the report in an inaccurate way. You're right that it may or may not be accurate, but let's not dismiss it out of hand in an untruthful way. If it's true, it sure might stimulate another look at our decisions.

Dear Mark,
for change the opinion of the reality on a situation ,no matter what is, ( like the politicians from all over the World do all the time), there are : desinformation and the Art of persuasion.
The supremacy consists in INFORMATION and how can be manipulate .We live with two frights of death , the one, natural, and another one because we do not live with true, from the relations between people to politics.
Silvia

Bravo, Mark, I totally agree that falsely discrediting the source is not the way to go.

As you know, I've made a commitment to business ethics a cornerstone of my own work and have started an international Business Ethics Pledge movement, business-ethics-pledge.org.

O'Reilly has a long history of speaking lies as if they were truth. Aside from the fact that I find his politics loathsome, I find his lack of regard for the truth despicable.

And as you correctly point out, this is not a left-right thing. I found Ralph Nader's behavior in the aftermath of the 2000 election disgusting, and I had voted for him. In his case, it wasn't a matter of lying but it was still a slap in the face to my own ethics. I did not vote for him in '04, even though I was not impressed with the mainstream alternatives.

NOTE FROM MJ: Hey Shel, great to see you here my friend. And great to see someone who is looking past partisan politics for the truth. If we're serious about preventing more death, I think we'll examine the reality dispasionately and without the lense of the reality we want to believe.

The Washington Post is your source, Mark?

I supposed The New York Times would be another "reliable" source.

I consider these to be far left and extremely biased.

At least O'Reilly TRIES to be fair. He doesn't always get it right, but I trust him more than your "reliable" sources.

NOTE FROM MJ: Michael, I personally don't believe that O'Reilly actually tries to be unbiased, but that's beside the point. That the study exists and was conducted by epidemiologists and overseen by Johns Hopkins is not a matter of dispute. Look it up. If O'Reilly had disputed it fairly, I wouldn't have had a problem. But he didn't.

I totally agree with Shel. O'Reilly is more responsible than the rest of the cable talking heads. This country is so divided thx to the dem's and the filter they installed in their "subjects". I want the truth, and find more of it on Fox than any other news outlet. May God have mercy on this nation...opps, I used the word God.

A comment from South Australia - as a serving police officer (32yrs) I have learnt to take anything reported in the media with a pinch of salt. Having personally been stung a few times I am very dubious. Whilst I can't comment on O'Reilly comment (we do have it on Fox but I have never bother to watch it) but there is a 'war' going on in Australia between the two prime time current affairs shows.
One has been caught out twice recently - firstly when they ran a story of an elderly woman who had chained herself to avoid being evicted from her home. It was later found out that the reporter had actually provided her with the chain and padlock. The other related to the recent Indonesian airliner crash. An investigator lied to get Mercedes Corby (sister of Aust woman convicted in Indonesia for drug smuggling) out of hiding to ambush her for a story. They lied about documents that they said were from a woman who died in the plane crash.
It would appear that Australia like the US has a media service that promolgate 'misinformation' for a good story. Sadly, a large proportion of the community believe without question.

NOTE FROM MJ: Hey John, thanks for this insight. Just came back from Melbourne the other day - stunning city!

Wow, people die in war? I'm shocked. Does anyone happen to remember why we're there? I forget. And how many did Sadam kill with weapons of mass destruction...chemical warfare is considered a weapon of mass destruction, isn't it? I know it was in the six figures, but that's not our problem...like WW II wasn't. I propose electing all democrats in the next election. Let's give them a shot as winning the terriosts over into leaving us alone. After all, they'll give them Iraq, if only by giving them a date when we'll pull out-- that should be a good trade for America. Are ya all in?

NOTE FROM MJ: Caty, whether you're for the war or not shouldn't we be honest about facts? If our case is just, we shouldn't be afraid of the facts at all. O'Reilly mis-spoke and should correct himself publicly. That's what responsible journalists do when they get it wrong - pro-war or anti-war - liberal or conservative or whatever ...

Bill O'Reilly is far from a 'jackass' - Of course to each his own... I see Bill Clinton, Hilary (LOL), Kerry, and many others as jackasses.

Bill O'Reilly provides much more valid information then the majority of CNN. CNN spreads nothing but leftist views. O'Reilly generally gives both sides some chance.

To attack him for stating that a statement was from a leftist source when you were nothing but an outsider listening to a conversation is pure stupidity.

How do you know that's the source he was even referring to? How many other studies have been done? Are there other groups claiming these same numbers? Or maybe John Hopkin's University is a leftist/liberal school (ding ding ding, if you've ever looked at anything about the school, it is... hence his information is NOT DISINFORMATION)

I had much more respect for you Mark. I know you're trying to build buzz about your new book and do a good product launch and all, but doing it through insults (and your own DISINFORMATION) to other highly respectable leaders is simply a low blow.

I'll probably still listen to your marketing ideas since they ARE something I respect... but I will be removing myself from your list if all you're going to be doing is spreading your own personal liberal views.

NOTE FROM MJ: Todd ... 1) I'm not a liberal. 2) This is about disinformation, not politics. 3) The whole show is presenting information to "outsiders" and has a lot of linfluence - it should be discussed. 4) I'm not insulting him. I wrote to him respectfully and am merely presenting the information. 5) There is a very specific study, that does exist and was conducted by reputible scientists, and he misinformed people by saying it was from a "far left website." If someone misinforms the public, especially on such an important issue and in such a grand scale, it deserves to be corrreted.

Hi Mark,
Anyway you look at it, the death toll in Iraq is staggering. I'm not much of a political guy, but I do know that if you get your news from the likes of MAHER or O'REILL your just wasting your time. I think MAHER should go back to stand up comedy!

By the way, good luck with your new book. I look forward to reading it.

All The Best!

Steve Renner

A comment from Sunny Sudden FRANCE -Earth Citizens sin- "indifference" Thank you Mark for opening the issue on "disinformation." Everyone seems very passionate: "O"Reilly, Maher, politics, facts, truth"... In the meantime "Earth Citizens" (God's creatures if you believe there is a "Higher Power") are still dying daily in Irak. (lost Iraqi, American lives... many being innocent people= Earth Citizens)... Is the debate about "disinformation"?... We live in a global "fear" based society. We are becoming increasingly "indifferent"... to "others" suffering. Gandhi said: "in the midst of death, life persists, and in the midst of darkness, light perists...We can say "no" to violence, and "yes" to life." If we really felt the weight of our own individual actions, and responsability... Instead of spending so much time "arguing with words" We would strengthen our life daily by our personal "acts"... Noone can be "neutral" and "indifferent" to what's happening to Planet Earth, its Earth Citizens (specialy in Irak)... certainly NOT because we've got 3 meals a day, a job, a fat bank account, or because we have too much responsability or are too poor to "care"... In a fear based society, Earth Citizens are being daily bombarded by GIGABITS of "disinformation" and crippled with "information overload" In this context what should Mark Joyner have said? "For God's sake, don't disturb me...leave me alone...with your "true lies...Let's keep it simple...Let me mind only Simpleology Training"... My friend as you have a "fight with words": "disinformation", "white lie", "true lie"... let me remind you that Earth Citizens are dying DAILY in Irak... So I ask you Earth Citizen: "Are you blind"... and "is your heart made of stone"?...that you do not SEE what's at stake (LIVES: HUMAN LIVES)... We have right here and right now a crisis of: Truth, Honesty, Courage, and LUCIDITY... This is not just about "disinformation"...and O'Reilly... It's foremost about "indifference"...and "fear"... The higher we are socialy the more we seek security... no disturbance..."leave me alone"... "I have enough of my own problems" And slowly "inertia" takes place in our lives... (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual inertia) while EVERYTHING is constantly changing in this dynamic universe... As we are "debating" Earth Citizens in Irak give their last breath on Planet Earth... Albert Schweitzer*, le � Grand Docteur� who fought for growth of brotherhood among races was right when he said: "Men do not think"... In fact the last thing "WE"... YOU and I...want to face is that YOU and I are responsible for this violence... - FIAT LUX - *Albert Schweitzer: His whole life and all of his work are a message addressed to all men regardless of nationality or race... Note: "In these troubled and uncertain times men are searching for something which will allow them to believe that mankind will one day enjoy the reign of peace and goodwill. "If altruism, reverence for life, and the idea of brotherhood can become living realities in the hearts of men, we will have laid the very foundations of a lasting peace between individuals, nations, and races." Presentation Speech by Gunnar Jah for: -Dr. Albert Schweitzer NOBEL PEACE PRIZE RECIPIENT 1952-

NOTE FROM MJ: Beautiful! Read my "constructs" and you'll see we're very much on the same page. It's one thing to think it, another to do something about it. Look at "Construct One" for the first step ...

Could you please clarify something for me?

Todd Dickerson said "I will be removing myself from your list if all you're going to be doing is spreading your own personal liberal views." He obviously believes the word 'liberal' is a term of abuse.

And Mark, you said "Todd ... 1) I'm not a liberal."

My dictionary (the Macquarie) defines liberal as "1. favourable to progress or reform, as in religious or political affairs" and further "5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant"
Now I would be very plesed to be called a liberal but you Mark are not! Does this mean that you don't want progress in religion or politics and that you are intolerant, prejudiced and bigotted?
I must say that I would be very surprised if you were like that, your writings certainly do not give that impression.
Or is the word liberal a term of abuse only in the US? Perhaps like Communist used to be (still is?). I would appreciate it if you could define what it was that you were denying. Maybe other non-Americans would too.
Still like your stuff though!

NOTE FROM MJ: John, very perceptive comment. First, I don't think it's a derogatory term either, but some who brand themselves as "conservative" in the US believe it is (in the same way that some "liberals" might call conservatives "right wingers" etc ...) When I said "I'm not a liberal" I mean that I am not what one might normally, in common political parlance, term "liberal." If "liberal" means "free thinking" "free from prejudice" etc. - then sign me up! Words sometimes have various meaning depending on the context and the location of use, of course ... Isn't it funny how we don't even agree on the meaning of the term, but we so quickly dismiss people with such lables ... To make the situation more complex, there are actually different types of political liberals and conservative (you can be a fiscal conservative and simultaneously a social liberal, for example). But I sincerely doubt those who fling the terms about are even really thinking about it that deeply (no offense). "Liberal" "Right Winger" etc. these are all just different flavors of "the enemy" sometimes ...

Again, I saw the O'Reilly/Maher interview and all I came away with from him disagreeing with the "600,000 dead" comment was that O'Reilly was merely giving his OPINION. That is all! I don't recall him quoting facts. I didn't see it as being fact or disinformation...just an OPINION.

Geez Mark, if you want to strike a chord, then say something pro or con about Bill O'Reilly and you will get the comments on here hah hah (you marketing genius you)!

Make the same comment about any other talking head (like Katie Couric, Britt Hume, Chris Matthews, et al) and most probably wouldn't even bother to comment.

You know something though? I see these comments by people just going off on O'Reilly...I mean, reeeeeally really hating him, and I would bet good money that these O'Reilly haters have NEVER seen his show. Stop being so close minded you people! My dad was a fanatic right winger and many (not all) of you fuzzy thinking leftists are every bit as shut down and close minded as he was!

Consider this... You O'Reilly group-think haters (and I am well aware that group-think types exist on both sides of the fence) might think differently about O'Reilly if you bothered to watch his show. Whoa! How radical is that! How can I say that? Because he ALWAYS has people with opposing opinions on his show and most of the stuff he talks about and champions are things you probably agree with!!!

Here are a few examples of recent stuff O'Reilly has talked about...

- O'Reilly is for taxing big oil. I disagree because I have the brains and/or common sense to know that I'm going to have to pay for those f-ing taxes, but I bet every fuzzy thinking knee jerk close minded leftist on here is gung ho for taxing big oil, aren't you?

- O'Reilly believes in civil unions and so do I. Don't you leftists agree with that?

- O'Reilly is pro gay rights just as he is pro civil rights. I think he just doesn't want the whole gay deal shoved down our throats because I can tell you (and I'm pretty sure I've gotten this from O'Reilly) that it is NONE of my business what people do with their wieners!

- O'Reilly thinks the government MUST do something right now about global warming. Oh, and I bet you leftists agree with that. I'm extremely skeptical because global warming has become a religion for many, and as soon as that happens...whoosh...there goes the ability to reason! There is much credible science that now says its due to solar flare activity and there is NOTHING we can do about that. For chris-sakes, last hurricane season was hardly a whimper, the east coast has been freezing their collective asses off this winter and we've had a very cool winter out here in sunny San Diego. In fact, I had the biggest energy bill last month that I have ever had, and rates haven't gone up here yet. Sorry to disagree with you Al Gore..you big fat bloated slits for eyes energy sucking hypocritical bag of hot gas.

- O'Reilly thinks the Iraq war is a disaster and don't you? The difference is that he still wants the U.S. to "win." I.E. democracy prevails, the psycho's will stop killing each other and we will be able to leave with a shred of credibility. I agree with that too because I am choosing to think positively about a very ugly situation. Don't you? I also think that any minute sparrows are going to fly out of my ass too! :-) No really, lets hope and pray for the best with this mess because what other choice do we have?

- O'Reilly thinks and is championing stiff mandatory sentences for child molesters. I agree. Don't you?

- O'Reilly thinks judges that hand down slap-on-the-wrist sentences for child molesters (especially recidivist molesters) should have the spotlight put on them and be made accountable. I agree with that, don't you?

- O�Reilly thinks rich people like himself should be taxed a lot more. I disagree because I think the government is a bloated wretched festering tumor that just burns our wealth�BUT�I bet you fuzzy thinking leftists are all for taxing those big bad rich people aren�t you? Hah, you know you live for that! Its been like a mind numbing mantra forever. Tax the rich�tax the rich�.tax the rich�(and who cares that government will use the bulk of it to perpetuate themselves)�tax the rich...tax the rich...

So there you go. Those are just a few of the things that come to the top of my mind that he has talked about lately. Look, right or wrong, when he hands out his opinion, I know it is an OPINION and I can choose to agree with him or not�because I have a brain.

See, the one reeeeeally disturbing thing about the left is that they always proclaim to be champions of the first amendment, yet they are the first ones to shut down dissenting opinion.

Wake up and get it together you people!

Think: Free markets and free minds.

NOTE FROM MJ: Stephen, actually O'Reilly was stating it as fact - not opinion. You can see the transcript of the conversation in question from a post below. "That's from a far left website." That's a statement of fact. He could have said "I don't agree with the study." That would have been cool, and totally his right. Also, just because people don't like O'Reilly doesn't mean they are group-thinkers and it doesn't mean they haven't seen his show. And who is "the left" mon ami? Lots of assumption and generalization here. Free markets and free minds - all for that! We probably almost all are, but there is a lot of fuzzy language that makes us think we're on different "sides."

Wow..... what a fascinating thread. Most excellent discussion Mark!

Usually, ideological dogmatists of any stripe (-mindsets-, not people) drive me to distraction. My own included!

I am impressed by the effort folks here have made to remain civil in their discourse, rather than resorting to blatant flaming and name calling. Wherever you perceive your position to be in this discussion, my compliments to members of this board, for making an effort to -play well with others-. Ill try to follow suit.

There has already been some discussion about -of what does our perception consist-.

Last year, my friendly neighbor across the street, asked me to come over and talk to her and her husband. I went over, and she proceeded to ill characterize my dog, and tell me how much he had -changed- the neighborhood. He does bark at some people, as they walk by my home, and I live 1 block from a major university in Kansas City, so there is a LOT of foot traffic (and property crime).

I was very polite, and she kept hammering me, and I will confess that I lost my patience when it became apparent, the discussion would continue until I agreed to get rid of my dog, or put him down. All this, about a dog that SOMETIMES barked at SOME people. The tenor of it, was there was definitely some palpable hysteria underlying her -concerns-.

I did lose my cool a bit, as I asked them what they wanted me to do. At this point, the wife, Laurie, a little taken aback by actually digging my heals in a bit, chimed in: -...well, maybe I am being overly focused on this. I was chased and bitten by a dog, when I was about 7 years old, and have been terrified of dogs ever since.-

I think my mouth dropped open, and I said -Really?- (And I thought, -Maybe you should be having some face time with a counselor, instead of me.- But I didnt say that.) Her husband blushed, and I said -wow, look at the time- and took my leave.

The point here, obviously, is one of personal perception. The small children next door, love my dog, and any children that meet him get their faces cleaned off by him. But to Laurie, he is a -menace-.

Since then, she has softened a lot. But, considering her early experience, and who knows whatever earlier influences, there are generally only one variety of dog. The scary variety.

Laurie has been able to make the connection to her reenforced perception, and her powerful fear of dogs. How many of us can say that about our political or ideological world-view?

Try out the word -terrorism-. A horrible thing happened to a few thousand New Yorkers, and to a greater or lesser extent, citizens of the U.S., on 9-11-01. Look at how much it changed the lexicon of media news, and of social discourse in this country. Terror alerts, -taking the fight to the terrorists-, dirty bombs, -they hate us because of our freedom-, and before its all over, probably a one trillion dollar expense, to -fight terrorists- in Iraq, since its better than fighting them here.

Interesting fact: Every man, woman and teenager in this country with a drivers license, is 3,600% (based on accident mortality of 50,000+ per year) more likely to die from an automobile accident, than from terrorism. Every man, woman and child in this country, is more than 10,600% likely to die as a result of medical error (-Death by Medicine-, Dr.s Null, Dean, Feldman, Rasio, Smith, 2005. Using numbers that the medical industry admits are very under reported, placing the annual death rate due to -medical error- at 420,000 to 780,000).

This just begs the question, why no -War on Medical Errors- or -War on Poor Driving Habits-. Is it possible, that the War on Terror is about something besides the death of innocent Americans? I dare anyone reading this to just ask the question.

Do 50,000 people REALLY die in auto accidents every year? Or am I fudging that, to push an ideological agenda. Do 10s of thousands of people die because of medical error every year, or is this just a hidden agenda, presented by people who were bitten by doctors when they were children? Maybe those deaths are -more acceptable-, because they were not caused by terrorists. Admittedly, they are probably less shocking, but no less of a loss, for those left behind to grieve.

So long as politics in the U.S. continue to be framed in Right and Left, Americans and the world at large, will be at the affect of moneyed interests who have an agenda which has little or nothing to do with the principles and ideals which made America a courageous experiment in the human endeavor. This is true whether the current power base is so called -Liberal- or -Conservative-.

Isnt it amazing, that our perceptions have been affected to the point that we will even think -..... it wasnt 650,00 folks dead in Iraq, it WAS ONLY 60,000.- My own take, on the point Mark is trying to make, has to do with the power of nuance and spin, in the media, to take what is fed to us, and position it as fact in our world-view, without even bothering to check out whether it is correct.

One last thought ......... I would like to suggest here, that it is a fact, that there is much about what Mark Joyner was privy to, while in military service to the U.S., that he is bound by law and certainly principle, to refrain from disclosing publicly. I dont mean to put words in your mouth Mark..... but

I think there are some here who are a bit naive, and think Mark is being naive. Personally, I dont. Folks in M.I., as a matter of course, have a fair bit of training about human perception, and its constructs and dynamics. Has Marks M.I. training been lost on everyone but me? I hope not. Thats why I think it is awesome that he is willing to -stir the beliefs and perceptions- pot here.

Over the past year or so, I have become amazed, through my own experiences, at the level of plasticity of perception and belief, and how powerful language and images are in the alteration of perception and belief, often without the intended audience even consciously recognizing that there very -beliefs- are being re-shaped.

Check out the documentary -The Century of the Self-. It is about the birth of advertising and public relations in the modern world, and who the players were early on.

Mark, I think you do an awesome service here, to those that are willing to see the value of being -free- to being -right-. Keep up the awesome work!

My point was that John Hopkins IS known to be a left wing school. His comment was NOT "disinformation".

Other people have posted references to additional studies that have been done that also question the legitimacy of these 'reputable scientists' (which means nothing btw, for every scientist that says one thing on a debatable topic we'll see another that says the opposite).

Another words he had reason to say that this study was from a left wing group. It was in question by multiple other scientists and was conducted by a traditionally liberal university.

Also I did not use the word 'liberal' as a form of 'abuse'?? I said 'your liberal views' which they are - If you want to take it as having a negative connotation then thats reflective of your own views and experiences not mine.

Note from MJ: Todd, pointing out the disinformation of a commentator does not make one liberal, conservative, or otherwise. It makes them a seeker of the truth. I could not have pointed out this kind of thing by any news commentator without being accused by someone, of some kind of bias. And if this post had an anti-war slant, that wouldn't make me a liberal either. (Just what kind of liberal do you think I am, by the way? I fiscal liberal? A social liberal? Do you know the difference? What of my post and which of my views is exactly liberal? Have you considered that I might be a conservative who doesn't like the war? Or maybe a libertarian who likes neither party? Or maybe that I'm none of the above?) As for whether it's disinformation, perhaps I should have mentioned in the post that the study was originally published in the UK scientific journal, The Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/abstract - they have other such left-leaning article as "Clinical, educational, and epidemiological value of autopsy" and "Does PET imaging have a role in renal cancers after all?" Yes, clearly a liberal rag. Come now - his characterization of that figure as coming from a "far left website" is flatly false. Calling the Washington Post a "far left website" is a stretch as it is. Whether it's left or not the phrase "far left website" makes people think it's from some obscure extreme website - not a news institution that is widely respected (by some - not necessarily me - I don't know enough about it). Calling a scientific journal the same is absurd. If he had tried to discredit the science, that would have been a whole 'nother matter entirely. That would be fair - if he did so factually and actually understood the science (no disrespect but I doubt that most of the critics of the study even understand the statistical methods involved). Dismissing the figure in the way he did was in fact disinformative. Remember, he didn't even recognize that it was from a scientific study at all. Maher said "600,000." O'Reilly said, "that's from a far left website." It didn't give his viewers the full information they, and you, deserve. If you want to defend O'Reilly on the whole, you're quite welcome to - I even welcome it here - but to say that what he did was not disinformation is not making your case credible. Doens't me we still can't be friends. With love and respect, MJ.

The problem with Bill is he was educated in American schools where educational fraud starts in elementary school. American schools do not teach the facts. They teach the adgenda of those in charge.

A perfect example of this is the continued referene to America as a Democracy when it is in fact a Constitutional Republic. Children are not taught the Constituion is a document limiting government but something quite different. Children are not taught that the Constitution cannot be altered by simple legislation yet it happens time after time because the people don't know any better.

A truthful education is what is needed in this country to pull it out of its current sprial into a police state.

Take that!

Hello Everyone,
My wife was finally able to kick the habit before she got pregnant with our now first born beautiful baby gilr, so I tought I'll share the resource that she has used to help her quit the smoking habit with as many people as I can.
She was a heavy smoker for about ten years and just a couple of weeks after finding out about the program that I have researched online, she was able to quit smoking permanently and now can't stop telling people about how she had kicked the habit for good.
Anyway if somebody want to check it out the site is; http://endthehabitnow.com