Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

National Coalition Calls for Campus Censorship of "Offensive" Speech (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the sticks-and-stones dept.

schwit1 writes with this opinion piece from Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law at UCLA School of Law, about the push to ban "offensive" speech and censor websites on campus. He writes: "A large coalition of advocacy groups has asked the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights to pressure colleges to (1) punish students for their speech and (2) block student access to certain Web sites — especially sites such as Yik Yak, which allow students to anonymously post their views..... Yet another example of today's Anti-Free Speech Movement for American universities — unfortunately, one that fits well into the Education Department's attitudes. Fortunately, courts have firmly rejected these kinds of calls to restrict college student speech, though the OCR and the college administrations it pressures can get away with a lot of restrictions until the lawsuits are actually brought."

35 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. Censoring speech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... how very European of them.

    1. Re: Censoring speech... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are we to ask them who was killed when they migrated across the land bridge from Asia? Or about internecine warfare prior to the coming of the white man? It seems that they're as much immigrants here in the Americas as are the Europeans; the only difference is they got here before the Europeans did. There's no evidence humans evolved on this continent at all.

      What's always been surprising to me about the politically correct take on the Native American's situation is that it pays absolutely no mind to just how vicious and evil the Indians were to each other -- varied by tribe and time, of course, but still, they were all about conquer and murder and etc. before Europeans ever arrived here. Look at how the Aztec managed things, for example. You just haven't lived until you've seen the carved-out skull of a virgin, I tell ya.

      Every taking of land -- ever, I suspect -- was done by some fairly active stomping of the locals into the ground or enslaving them, abusing them, etc. by the stronger and/or more technologically sophisticated party (but I repeat myself.)

      Characterizing our Native Americans as innocents to whom evil was done doesn't seem to be even close to an accurate representation of history.

      Finally, there's only just so much worship of "traditional ways" you can pursue before you've gone and shot yourself right in the foot. That's as much of a problem -- a self-inflicted one -- as anything that actually makes the news. But of course, you can't really say that without coming under some pretty heavy criticism. Not that such a thing could happen here on slashdot, of course. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re: Censoring speech... by russotto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mass immigration is great! Just ask an Indian.

      I asked two. Running Deer disagreed and Mr. Patel agreed.

    3. Re: Censoring speech... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kind of hard to talk about something that hasn't happened yet.

      The vast majority of the Syrians that have fled their country have ended up in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Kind of hard to holocaust White Europeans from there...

      Besides, this isn't Camp of the Saints . Pre-war, Syria had one of the best educated and least religious populations of the nominally Islamic nations. The Syrians would be much better able to integrate into the workforce to actually contribute to the countries they resettle in, and not simply drag the economy down. This isn't some mass of rural-villagers or subsistence farmers, there was an actual economy and education system in Syria before the civil war.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re: Censoring speech... by dwye · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1) Very few were killed when they migrated over the land bridge, because at most very few were here, already (most evidence for a pre-Clovis population is sketchy at best - perhaps because the sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age drowned the good stuff).

      2) Europeans didn't kill the 95% of the pre-existing Indian population, European diseases that even the Europeans themselves couldn't really treat did. Most of those diseases were borne by farm animals, which the Europeans brought with them. You can see the effects from the writings from a Spanish expedition into what would become the Deep South. They brought a herd of pigs with them rather than hunting the local animals that the locals would have needed, treated the Indians with no violence (as they were explorers, not conquistadores), and by the time that they returned the locals were already dying of mysterious plagues that seemed somewhat like Europeans childhood diseases gone crazy. The local adults had never had mumps, chicken pox, measles, etc., all of which are usually relatively harmless when experienced as children and terrible when an unexposed adult catches them. There were other diseases that hit the Europeans hard (smallpox, cholera, etc.) that still hit the then-unexposed even worse, but barring an offhand comment by Lord Amherst no one would have considered using, much like no one uses chemical weapons anymore if the wind can change directions and blow it back on one.

      3) No one was very nice to anyone else in those days. If the Indians had a more extensive bacterial load than Eurasia they would have had no qualms about crossing the oceans and settling the depopulated European forests and the steppes, adopting wheat, barley,and rye to supplement their own maize and potatoes, and violating treaties with the whiteskins whenever the press of migration was too heavy.

    5. Re: Censoring speech... by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the US we already have less than 90% of the crime being perpetrated by less than 10% of the population. I can see why they might be upset with a 1% bump nearly made entirely of Muslim males from shit holes and failed states in the Middle East, in their teens and twenties, who are particularly notorious for their bad behavior.

  2. Liberals by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Liberals are all about freedom, expression, tolerance, etc. until you do or say something that they don't like.
    Tolerance and acceptance only apply to those they tolerate and accept. Everyone else gets branded a bigot hate monger, racist, misogynist, etc. the instant they exercise their own right to speak their mind or utter any un-PC truths. This behavior by liberals, of course, is the very definition of bigotry.

    1. Re:Liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish there was a party for me.

      I don't want to see people down trodden by the system living on the streets with no food shelter or medical care. In this country of ours there should be plenty for everyone to have those basic needs met. (For those especially that are truly unable to meet those needs.)

      But the freedoms of speech, religion(and from religion), and arms are in our god damned constitution. You don't fuck with that shit, quit trying to make exceptions to them. I also want to see people that freeload off the system to have to do community work. At that point welfare becomes wages. It would be nice if we had a new civilian conservation corp. We have bridges, roads, national parks, etc that need attention and that could be provided by those unable to find otherwise gainful employment.

      I also wish both parties would quit fucking with the right to be free from warantless searches and seizures. Do any of our politicians even know what is in the bill of rights? It seems not.

    2. Re:Liberals by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Citation please. Because I haven't heard any mainstream conservative groups try to restrict free speech; and almost every mainstream liberal group supports it (or fails to condemn their brethren who do).

    3. Re:Liberals by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because you see some soi-disant "liberals" touting the political correctness line doesn't mean they're liberals.

      So Not True Scotsman's?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Liberals by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit. This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds

      They aren't "liberals" in the traditional political science or European sense. They are, however, "liberals" in the modern American sense, which means that they are a mix of progressives, right wing populists, and neo-Marxists.

    5. Re:Liberals by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Liberals, conservatives, moderates, libertarians...just labels.

      The right to free speech is universal, and especially the most offensive of it must be protected if it is to survive at all.

      Ideas and opinions are not your enemy, even, and especially, if you disagree with them.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Liberals by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      your point proves his point to a T

      ad hom attacks? - check

      nothing but rambling? check

      posting AC while shouting down others? - check

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Liberals by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds.

      Umm, dude ... look at tfa, there's a list of organizations that signed the petition at the bottom. It's a list of organizations that you can tell are almost certainly squarely on the left side of the US political spectrum just by their names.

      Now, to the know-nothings thinking of responding: no, the organizations don't usually explicitly say they're liberal in their names, and some appear at first glance to be single-issue orgs, like "End Rape on Campus", but here's what's going on: the way they want to end rape on campus is probably by gutting the due process rights of those accused of rape (who are members of the patriarchy, so they don't deserve rights) and expelling anyone who makes jokes they don't like ("no means yes, yes means anal"). And for good measure probably also disciplining people who protest by holding up posters of aborted fetuses on the campus lawn for being disruptive -- they're obviously at war with women for doing that -- while allowing protests which involve carrying a mattress with you to all your classes, because that's of course not at all disruptive. These are not nonpartisan things to advocate.

      None of this has much to do with actually ending rape on campus -- I'm pretty sure not wanting people to be raped is a nonpartisan cause -- but if you think organizations with names like "End Rape on Campus" aren't liberal, and organizations with names like "True Americans for Growth" and "Patriots for Law and Order" (I just made those up) aren't conservative, you haven't been paying attention to US politics for at least, oh, 10-15 years.

      In short, if you can at all hear the dog whistles of US politics, the orgs in the list are all whistling "liberal" very loudly.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    8. Re:Liberals by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since you're an AC and not likely to be noticed, here's a list of some of the orgs. I don't recognize any that could be considered anything but liberal: Feminist Majority Foundation, Advocates for Youth, American Association of University Women, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Black Women’s Blueprint, Black Women’s Health Imperative, Center for Partnership Studies, Center for Women Policy Studies, Champion Women, Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues, Digital Sisters/Sistas, End Rape on Campus, GLSEN, Hollaback!, Human Rights Campaign, Institute for Science and Human Values, Jewish Women International, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Legal Momentum, Media Equity Collaborative, Muslim Advocates, National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Women’s Organizations, National Disability Rights Network, National Domestic Violence Hotline, National LGBTQ Taskforce, National Organization for Women, National Women’s Law Center, SPARK Movement, SurvJustice, The Andrew Goodman Foundation, Turning Anger into Change, UltraViolet, WMC Speech Project, Women’s Media Center, YWCA USA

    9. Re:Liberals by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wish there was a party for me.

      We tried holding it yesterday, but you called the cops when we got a bit noisy while setting it up. We tried.

      I also wish both parties would quit fucking with the right to be free from warantless searches and seizures. Do any of our politicians even know what is in the bill of rights? It seems not.

      Yes, it seems not, for the fourth amendment does not contain a prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures, but against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not define "reasonable" to mean "based upon a warrant", because that would be patently absurd. For example, if you point a gun at a cop, your gun will be seized and you will be searched prior to being put in jail. Neither requires a warrant (nor should they) but bother are reasonable.

    10. Re:Liberals by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds. If you look at attitudes historically, left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views.

      But as in this case usually aren't. The list consisted of dozens of left leaning multi-cultural groups mixed with a few anti-rape groups. Not a single member had anything to do with "conservative" viewpoints, unless you choose to count the handful of mildly religious-oriented groups. I think it's instructive to consider the chasm between the propaganda mentioned in your quote above and the reality of the political affiliations of the groups actually calling for suppression of free speech.

    11. Re:Liberals by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Liberal literally refers to "liber" (latin for free). Even if they consider themselves liberals, they are not. Whether they are left right up or down, they sure as shit aren't liberals. There are plenty of people on all political sides trying to ban what they find to be obscene. Fuck them all.

    12. Re:Liberals by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if thats what you honestly believe, it seems the democrats and republicans have done a good job of fooling you

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    13. Re:Liberals by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we should let them have what they wish... on the grounds that their speech is also restricted

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    14. Re:Liberals by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Democrats are Opposite People. Whatever they are saying is always the opposite of what they actually do in practice.

      Sort of like how Republicans for smaller government?

      You can bash democrats all you want. They probably deserve it. What I can;t stand is the implication that republicans are somehow better. And this goes for republican bashing as well.

      If you think either side of the republicrat party is any good, you need to have your head examined.

    15. Re:Liberals by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views

      Nope. Ideological extremity is usually what breeds totalitarianism. This barrier between moderate and extremist is most easily defined as the point where the ideology matters more than facts, truth, or rational argument. I think this 'coalition' is a datapoint among many suggesting we'll reach that point soon.

      In the last century, there have been far more examples of socialism running amok than fascism (USSR, DPRK, nazi germany, maoist china, argentina, and yes, even sweden, which favors the cloth covered iron fist even today). In the US, the neo-right used christian dogma to drive their statist cultural package, and the left positioned themselves as the ones who'd fight back, which sounded great to the 20something generation at the time. By the 80s, the religious right lost its prestige, and now, after 20 years of political dominance, we're seeing the left show its true colors. eg: they're attacking the youth culture their 60's era 'counter culture' bootstrapped ('free love' --> 'rape tribunals'), and protection of rational criticism against religious belief has been replaced with babblings about atheist/christian 'bigotry' towards muslims. Black lives matter? No. All lives matter. A misbehaving state affects all of us. Don't let the propaganda redirect your attention.

      Enough. I'm sick of the bullshit multilayered double standards. The whole left wing pantheon is based on these fixed hierarchies, defining which group is more oppressed than the other. It's just a smokescreen to compel these cross-sections to fight among each other. The left wing calls this 'intersectionality,' and you can major in this stuff at your local university, just like a real science degree! Anything, as long as no one pays attention to the marxists behind the curtain.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  3. The coddling of the american mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
    goes into more details...

  4. Oh sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the worst possible thing to do, not just for the basic liberties. The Atlantic published an article explaining why.

    We can't cocoon people and then let them out into the world. This is elementary-school treatment at a University Level.

  5. Campuses Used to be Free Speech Havens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During the 1960s college and university campuses were the birth places of free speech for students. Times have certainly changed with students demanding censorship.

  6. Kind of like vaccination... by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, I was just struck with how like vaccination this whole thing is - these students grew up in a much more 'free speech' era than, say, the 1960s. As such, they aren't used to seeing the harm that anti-free speech laws and regulations cause.

    Much like anti-vaxxors today who feel free to refuse vaccination because they haven't experienced the outbreaks and plagues that happened in history.

    I mean, I understand because I'm old enough to have a grandfather who was permanently affected by polio. So I grew up with that. But those much younger than me?

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  7. That coalition isn't that large, really by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you read the cited document (I know, not a popular thing to do around here) you can see the "coalition" at the end of the document. Notably absent from here is any university or any organization authorized to speak on behalf of one. Their list is as follows:

    Feminist Majority Foundation
    Advocates for Youth
    American Association of University Women
    Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
    Black Womenâ€(TM)s Blueprint
    Black Womenâ€(TM)s Health Imperative
    Center for Partnership Studies
    Center for Women Policy Studies
    Champion Women
    Clearinghouse on Womenâ€(TM)s Issues
    Digital Sisters/Sistas
    End Rape on Campus
    GLSEN
    Hollaback!
    Human Rights Campaign
    Institute for Science and Human Values
    Jewish Women International
    Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
    Legal Momentum
    Media Equity Collaborative
    Muslim Advocates
    National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity
    National Black Justice Coalition
    National Center for Lesbian Rights
    National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
    National Council of Jewish Women
    National Council of Womenâ€(TM)s Organizations
    National Disability Rights Network
    National Domestic Violence Hotline
    National LGBTQ Taskforce
    National Organization for Women
    National Womenâ€(TM)s Law Center
    SPARK Movement
    SurvJustice
    The Andrew Goodman Foundation
    Turning Anger into Change
    UltraViolet
    WMC Speech Project
    Womenâ€(TM)s Media Center
    YWCA USA

    Local Organizations
    Atlanta Women for Equality
    Collective Action for Safe Spaces
    DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence
    DC Rape Crisis Center
    Democratic Womenâ€(TM)s Club of Northeast Broward
    Empowerment Center â€" Maryland
    Lincoln County Oregon Democratic Central Committee
    National Organization for Women â€" Akron Area, Ohio Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Boulder, Colorado Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Brevard, Florida Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Central Oregon Coast Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Florida Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Greater Orlando, Florida Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Indiana Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Maryland Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Middlesex County, New Jersey Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Ni-Ta-Nee, Pennsylvania Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Oregon Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Palm Beach County, Florida Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Pennsylvania Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Rhode Island Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Shore Area, New Jersey Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Tacoma, Washington Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Tampa, Florida Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Thurston County, Washington Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Virginia Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Washington Chapter
    National Organization for Women â€" Washington, DC Chapter
    Network for Victim Recovery of D.C.
    PFLAG Oregon Central Coast
    Womenâ€(TM)s Production Network (Florida)

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  8. Re:Dear National Coalition by dmaul99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's "intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes"

  9. I remember.. by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember when it was the religious right that was trying to impose its values on society using the government (eg: abortion rights). The left was positioning itself as supporting the live and let live attitude, especially concerning sex. Now, today's left is all about campus 'rape tribunals' that model soviet show trials and pushes out tons of fear-mongering propaganda to create neurotic behavior in young people (mostly men) about sex. Now this 'coalition'... I guess like the neocons censored for jesus, the New Left censors for marx. Yay for big statists!

    How about we just let individuals speak their minds and deal with the fact that not everyone will agree? That is a required cornerstone of learning, right? Free thought? Free expression that includes criticism? What a bunch of pissant crybabies this society's become.

  10. Re:How is this not harassment? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It may not be, but when it's super easy to expand the definitions of 'harassment' to include criticism, suddenly the law becomes a tool to censor speech.

  11. Logic Implosion by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    STFU.

    So what you are saying is that you find this idea highly offensive and would like to have the people who suggested it censored. ;-)

    Mind you I think you have hit on by far the most educational response to this request which is to immediately censor the idiots who made it. This would of course trigger a huge backlash from them against the injustice of them being silenced which would be the perfect time to point out that you found their ideas highly offensive and were just giving them exactly what they asked for.

    Hopefully that would teach them a valuable lesson on the importance of free speech but sadly I doubt it if they were stupid enough to come up with the request in the first place.

  12. Re:Dear National Coalition by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    well years ago bush was president... so it was wrong

    but now obama is president so... more restrictions are good???

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  13. I guess you just outed yourself as anti-science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The FACT is that, using the federal govt's own stats, HIV in the US is primarily a male homosexual disease. It's common in the English-speaking world to say that a bad thing affecting a particular group is a "curse" (with no witch or witchdoctor implications - it's a figure of SPEECH, which I guess the left cannot tolerate).

    When ALL the stats, even those collected by people with a political agenda contrary to the results, say that a particular thing is associated with a particular subset of the population it is completely dishonest/ignorant/childish to insist that the objective stats are true. HIV prevalence in all Western societies is primarily among those who engage in male homosexual acts (both homosexual men and bisexual men). HIV affects IV drug users to a lesser extent, and to a lesser extent the sexual partners of the afore-mentioned three groups. The African continent is the outlier in having HIV as a large problem in the "normal" population because the cultural norms are very different and ignorance in many "at-risk" populations is stunning; There are ares of Africa, for example, where men believe they can be cured of AIDS by having sex with young virgin girls. That sort of stuff pushes HIV into the non-gay population in a way that simply will never happen in the Western world.

    Bill Buckley was right on this, as on many other things.

    Oh, and the Democrats in California passed a law in 2000 making it illegal to teach anything like this in the schools - anything that can be construed as "anti-gay" is illegal in the public schools - so much for "free speech" and liberals supporting truth and science.

  14. Re:Well? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    fight stupidity with more stupidity

    It seems like you've already started

  15. Re:Leftists are insane by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To be fair, anyone who identifies themselves as leftist or rightist are utter idiots. Intelligent people evaluate each issue individually and make choices (if necessary) to address those issues based on what they believe is the most productive and constructive (or in some cases, the easiest) option.

    The real problem isn't the left or the right... it's the left AND the right and every other damn option out there.

    While I am entirely aware I risk making the same mistake, you apparently have a gift of making impressively stupid comments without applying thought or reason to what you say and instead simply spout some populist nonsense that is little more than finger pointing.

    Take responsibility for yourself, this article identifies a REAL problem. The problem is, we've (I am not even in America, yet I recognize "WE" is accurate) have established a "civilization" that contains some very clear and identifiable problems.
    1) There are knuckle-draggers in our higher education system that clearly are in desperate need of an education but are also clearly not likely to obtain one as they have shown they're as ignorant as you by stereotyping based on some trait they believe makes another person less than they are... based on a group... which generally has no actual genuinely common characteristics.
    2) There are fools in the higher education system who lack the intelligence to simply ignore the knuckle-draggers and steer clear of them if needed. While I can't identify from the article if the targets of the hate-speech are those who are complaining, I will assume at least a few of them are. The fools (like yourself and likely me for rising to the bait) making the hateful comments are a waste of time, food and air. What they say has utterly no relevance to anything. These fools who take offense to knuckle-draggers making such comments are a major problem.
    3) There are fools who seem to believe the solution to the problem is to try and hide it. People who I don't believe are left, right, lib, conservative, etc... but instead are truly the most dangerous people I know, the PC enforcement crowd have identified a long list of causes they "feel strongly about". They want to the be the mommies of us all and instead of attempting to identify and resolve the issues progressively... devising an intelligent solution, they instead want to make us cover our ears and eyes and pretend like it will go away if we just sweep it under the rug and come up with punishments for people who say naughty things.

    Fact 1) Thank goodness for the Internet... Racism is 100x better today than it was 10 years ago. Racists who talk on Facebook and Twitter have been learning that they have lots in common with all those people they used to hate for skin color and religion and now have learned that they can hate people no matter what their skin color or religion. So as a result, now a formerly racist person who desperately needs to believe that some group of people must be responsible for why their lives aren't better... they can point fingers at all kinds of other groups of people. It's like Christmas in July.

    Fact 2) We don't need mommies and we really don't need PC enforcers. It's better to simply avoid/ignore people who we find offensive. Which leads us to...

    Fact 3) People like you are a waste of time to make any effort on. It's just simply built into your system to pick some group to blame without actually even taking the time to identify whether those people are in fact a group or not. There is nothing me or any other person could say to teach you to think intelligently and objectively about each scenario and then make productive recommendations. Which leads us to ....

    Fact 4) Finger pointers really aren't a necessity and are actually generally not even wanted. We have Fox, CNN, ABC and BBC to do that for us... we don't need anyone else to do it. I tend to find the shows on the news networks tend to spend a lot of time constructing groups of people who agree with e