This would be bad. In areas where you had a largely one-sided party afflilation, you would have that party somehow always getting 100% of the votes.
Why? 10 people count the same 10 ballots a total of 10 times. If 9 out 10 ten where in the "Shamelessly Corrupt Party", all of the sudden 9 out of 10 would say "we got 100% of the votes", instead of, say, 90%. The one person in the other party comes in and says it was 9-to-1, and all of the sudden his count is the outlier and gets tossed.
It wouldn't have to be a 9-1 situation either. Let's say it 60/40 for one party. The "40" side would say they were the "60" side. All it would take for this to happen is for someone in the actual-60 party to miscount two votes, and then suddenly the 60/40 switches, and bamo. Tainted election.
It was a hardware/asset monitoring tool that integrated with SNMP.. let's see.. I can't find a goole on it, but it was a company that IBM ended up buying, and probably dismantling.. really low tech, but it kept a hash of all the hardware info, and if any of it changed, and triggered and SNMP message..
I was onsite just for a short time, to help with a set of (surprise) performance issues. I can't take credit for any of the systems design or initial implementation.
You don't mention this, but are users able to execute downloaded programs? (either binaries, or Microsoft(tm) Office(r) macros? screensavers?) If so, there are still holes in the scheme....
Sorry. Didnt mention it. There was a list of approved binaries that the system enforced. Though between me and you it was pretty easy to get around. I mean, the binaries weren't matched by hash, just by name. So if you could get admin rights and overwrite a binary you could at least get your own binary into play.. overwrite calc.exe or whatnot. Still, it'd be non-trivial to get admin rights, copy the binary, and do any damage/copying.
Abuses like that require no great deal of output. They can happen just by memorizing an address + phone number. To guard against such activities, it's better to have occasional auditing of search terms entered into the database (which your example probably already does).
As far as I can see they did cover this. Their internal systems (designed by a friend) required every query, access, etc to be attached (and billed) to a client. That client got a list of everything searched against and with what terms. I know they did at least bi-monthly audits of the logs on that on front..
"Stealing" data from someone who doesn't own it is impossible.
Some of this data - aka in report form - was unique and therefore very valuable.
I disagree. I used to manage the IT for a smallish (about 24 workstations) background-checking law firm and essentially I have to make sure their data is more secure than the average shop.
A nice mix of employment policies, system policies, and hardware policies keeps everything on the up and up.
Internet access is heavily restricted to make sure that even if malicious code was introduced into the environment sensitive data can't go out - HTTP file uploading, P2P applications, FTP, etc is restricted.
Fields POST'd to websites are recorded and run daily against the various databases to make sure that the employees are not mailing sensitive information to themselves or others via a webmail (most webmail apps are blocked via the content filter, however, with proxies and what not you never know) or other method (posted A.C. style to slashdot for example).
The most sensitive records - bank accounts, clients personal information, etc is stored in a database that, besides being physically secured, is on an encypted filesystem. Data is never displayed casually in any of their internal applications - you have to specifically take steps to get to the sensitive data - and every access is recorded and audited. The audit log is provided to the client. If an employee was fiddling around and access data inappropriately their client would know it.
The workstations do in fact each have CD burners because most users need to use them on a daily basis to distribute (encrypted) background check reports to the clients. The internal applications are the only ones with permission to write to these devices, and the contents of every CD are hashed, recorded, and audited. Any file that is on the CD but doesn't match by hash a file in the database is duplicated, stored securely and flagged for review. Every CD-R in the building is pre-embossed with a serial number, and every CD-R is doled out by a responsible party. A log is kept of who takes what serial numbered CDs, and each client must sign-off when he/she recieves their CD(s). Every CD is accounted for at the end of the week.
Every workstation is secured to the cement floor, and housed in a serious case (not plastic, but steel and/or annodized alum.) There is one floppy disk drive - an external USB model, kept onsite just in case.
External computers are not allowed on the network. Every machine on the network is allowed only by MAC, and IPSEC is required on every single device.
Print jobs are saved, recorded, and audited.
USB ports are, for now, phyiscally disabled. Every machine is setup with real-time logging of chasis intrusion systems. Intrusions are recorded and audited.
No users are permitted by software policy or by employment policy to login to a desktop with network administrator rights. Clearing any system or security logs requires a paper trail signed off on by a witness who is an officer of the company.
The security precautions went on and on. Backup tapes were encrypted, andd the entire backup device was hardened: the SCSI cable was spot welded to the back of the machine, and snaked through a stainless steel 1" pipe that was spot welded to back of the tape drive. The autoloader catridge mechanism was equipped with a key, which was replaced on purchase by a locksmith with a more robust tumbler. The cartridges were stored in the same safe that held the really valuable stuff we sometimes held in escrow. A random person from a pool of five had to change the tapes weekly accomponied by an officer of the company.
Basically, when I was running this place's IT, things were pretty tight. All the security steps were put in place because of a few dozen incidents in the late 1990's were the assets of the company were greatly abused by a few bad-actor employees. Clients including the FBI and CIA were furious beyond belief when they learned that various databases had been used to get dirt on ex-girlfriends, business foes, etc. One employee stole the identity of
In a corporate network, spanning, say, 8 offices, policies are seperate and distinct from what gets implemented by the hands-on ground-force IT staff.
By setting a network-wide policy, you still give the local IT people the ability to use other USB devices, allow *some* users the ability to use USB devices, allow other non-storage devices (aka printers, keyboards, mice, etc), and generally apply a more fine grained approach than simply the "rip out the USB port" tactic.
You think a simple switch of leaders is suddenly going to get rid of all the ill-will we have generated around the world? You are dreaming. Bush pissed away our international reputation, that will take many years to rebuild.
You outta take a few moments and think about why Bush has pissed off so many world leaders while Clinton was so loved by so many world leaders.
If you start thinking personality than stop, that's not it.
I think it is clear to the unbiased reader that there is at least the possibility that Katherine Harris' actions could meet that standard
I think I agree. There is clearly that apperance.
I am saying that to get out of the propaganda department though, what Moore needs to do is make a clear allegation.
It's an age old strategy: if you throw enough out there some of it will stick.
It is not absurd for Michael Moore to offer a clear, concise claim.
For example,
Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
What is Michael Moore alleging here? That Katherine Harris rigged the vote counting? That she stole ballots and replaced them with her own modified ones? That she obstructed the process? That she rushed to judgement? That she was corrupted by the Bush administration? What is he alleging regarding the company in question? That the company was hired with the directive to purge blacks from the voting rolls? That they were incompetent? That they were staffed by Bush operatives? That they colluded with other state offical to violate voter rights? That they acted with blatant racism? Or that they weren't careful enough to safeguard against voters being removed from the rolls improperly? What is he saying?
Michael Moore is intentionally vague here, as in other places, allowing only inuendo to make his claim. Then he can link to some articles which back up basic assertions: Katherine Harris was secretary of state, and co-chariman of the Bush campaign in Florida. Check. The State hired a company that whose owner bought a company which was founded by a strong Republican backer. Check. But where is the article about collusion? Where is the investigation of what type of arrangement was made? Where is the proof? He never provides any proof of wrongdoing! Just suspicious circumstances.
In court, this type of argument would be tossed out. It's nothing. There is no substance provided, instead, insuiations are drawn and the viewer/reader left to conjure about what might have happened.
That's funny. A neutral point of view. What on earth is that?
Statements like I quoted from Mr. Moore are not neutral. They express an opinon. For example, in the quote above he writes that you can usually tell "them by their skin color", right? He is making a judgement, that the felon list was compiled based on color. Okay, fine.
Neutral Point of View is an important idea. It means presenting ideas, facts, and opinions without making a judgement to which one is correct or incorrect. It means that the writer or speaker must present all views fairly.
So, instead of saying:
"Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
He could say something along the lines of:
"Katherine Harris, co-chairman of the Bush campaign in Florida as well Secretary of State was in charge of certifying the vote and supervising the counties vote counting officals. Criticism was raised by the United States Civil Rights Commission and others alleging the State had improperly hired a firm with Republican ties to remove felons from the voter registration rolls. Additionally, the comission claims that black and minority voters may have been targetted because of their statistical likelihood to vote for the Democratic candidate. State officals deny impropriety and point to the companies relatively high-success rate. Supporters of the decision to hire the company, including the Bush campaign, acknowledge that the data may have been faulty, and credit county officals for suspending use of the modified lists in 20 of Florida's counties."
That's the difference. In the second excerpt, facts not presented are excised. Multiple points of view are presented. Allegations are clearly made, and names named.
Is it Fox' point of view? Bush's point of view? Saddam's point of view? Kerry's point of view?
Neutral Point of View is all of those views. It is Bush's view, Kerry's view, and Saddam's view, rolled into one statement that examines each, provides relevant context and supporting materials.
An important aspect of any reasonable political system is to acknowledge that there are no truths (except in math and physics).
Why math and physics? For example, in Math, if you assume that 1=1, but that also 1 != 1, then you have nothing, and no truths, and everything is subjective. Same with physics. What rules do we follow? If you reduce things enough, the traditional rules fall away, and new rules must be invented to explain behavior.
What you are suggesting is that there is no objective truth. You should read into Natural Law which proposes that certain things are immanent in nature. Your claim that there are no objective truths is a clearly post-modern perspective, with which you are entitled to believe.
The problem with post-modern thinking in terms of politics is that no idea or policy or action is considered to better than the other. Why vote for one candidate over the other? Either one produces equally debateable results, with neither result being any better than the other. You have to be open that your result is inferior and superior to mine at the same time. If there are no objective truths, you are going to have an awfully hard time arguing for a specific course of action.
You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.
That's right. Which is why we should in fact just flip a coin between candidates, because in the end, no one's interpretation of one set of results is better than anyone eles's. It doesn't matter who wins, because, in the end, it's all a matter of inerpretation and individual policies or actions do not have any value or weight.
But, you are right. It's not democratic, it *is* capitalistic though. What would you prefer? That the government pay for some sort of rebuttal?
No, no, it's not capitalistic.
McCain-Feingold says that even if you have the money, if you not on the approved list of persons allowed to buy tv-time, you can't buy it.
It's not democratic, and it's not capitialistic. Michael Moore gets a pass because his political ad is in the form of a documentary, which is more expensive to make than a political ad. Get it now? If you get 100 people together, and each donates 1,000 to buy a poltical ad, those people are unable by law to buy that ad, but Michael Moore is allowed to.
We get our international respect back in only 3 days? SWEET!
Yes.
In three days we get our $200,000,000,000 back that we spend on a war based on a lie?
Yes.
In three days we can have the 9000 wounded soldiers healed? and In three days we can get our 1000 dead soldiers back?
No. Of course not.
Of course the damage that is done is done. But as far as to undo the damage, ie, to undo the laws, regulations, etc that people disagree with? That'll take not more than 3 days if they wanted it.
But none of that matters. Congress will still be Republican (very likely, maybe more than 90%, but at least, 90%).
Right, if you read up a few lines, you'll notice that I am advocating moving the bar up on dress codes. What passes for acceptable today is unbelievable, with 12 yr old girls looking like total sluts, etc etc. Its beyond the pale, and distracts from the only purpose of going to school: education.
Any damage Bush has done will be easily reversed assuming you have a willing Congress.
Two, maybe three days of work and basically you can erase the entire Bush presidency.
The problem of course from your point-of-view is that regardless of whether Bush wins or loses the Congress will, with 90% certainity, be even more Republican than it is now.
Republicans will have a chance to respond in whatever way Moore talks. Do you mean Christian Coalition hasn't made any decent movies during its whole existance?
No, actually they won't. If Moore gets his movie on TV the day before any election, Republicans will have no means to respond. Since they can't take out ads to refute his points, it seems unlikely that an individual republican without co-ordination from the RNC or the Bush campaign could put together a refutation, get it filmed, and get it to air between no and then.
FOX is in it for one reason: money. The major networks + CNN, et all have been very critical of conservative causes. It's only a matter of time until someone with conservative ideas and money comes along and grabs that market and its money.
FOX does what is necessary to get money. For example, the FOX network airs shows that are very racy, and basically offensive to conservative values. Why? It's profitable. Compared to FOX, ABC/CBS/NBC are uber-conservative in the shows they air.
"X" is a fact. (link here)
"Y" is a fact. (link here)
"Z" is a fact. (link here)
However, when you then say that "X->Y->Z and therefore W is true, and see the links that backup X, Y, and Z for proof."
The test here, really, is this:
If Michael Moore had of presented his film with neutral point of view, would most people agree with his conclusions presented seperately?
I'll give you an example:
Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
The links he use only provide casual relation of the facts, they are not evidence of his claim. He links to an article which says that the owner of a company purchased by the owner of a subsidary who prepared the felon list gave $100,000 to the RNC. Is Michael Moore suggesting that the $100,000 was quid pro quo for putting blacks on the list? Is he suggesting that the man who sold his company to a company who has a subsidary that prepared the list had influence over the list? He doesn't say. He uses inference and the "ohh, of course there was collusion" factor to make his actual claim. The links are just simple distractions here.
Likewise, he doesn't address any counter-arguments. For example, that the "vote counting" woman in fact does no vote counting. For example, that the people who actually supervise the vote counts are elected officals of the county they work for. For example, that most counties in Florida did not use the felon listed. This presents a serious credibility problem. If you read the refutation points that are linked, it is interesting to note that race was specifically disallowed as a criteria, and that no evidence has ever been presented to counter this. But again, Moore doesn't address any of this, and instead, tries to prove wrong doing by inference only.
So, basically, what I am saying is this: having the articles that back up his quotes, figures, etc are nice, but they only backup the individual statements - not his combined synthesized conclusions. That is a major flaw.
No, it would only prevent people taking out ads to refute the airing of the documentary. Since this isn't technically a political ad and doesn't endorse or mention a "candidate", it's a-okay. But mind you, the RNC or a Bush supporter can't take out ads to refute the points raised in the film.
The problem is that Michael Moore - a private citizen - has a right to get this on the air. But thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to produce and publicize a documentary doesn't have the ability to respond. Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign.
However, uniforms are one of the goals of all the worst fascists
How many times must I tell you. I am not advocating Uniforms. Get it through your head. There is a vast difference between Uniforms and having a dress code. A uniform is when everyone wears the same clothing, perhaps with two variations for the sexes. A dress code is setting limits and paramters on the manner in which you dress. It's a big difference. If you would stop wondering about fascists and uniforms you might notice that I am not speaking of uniforms.
Of the 6 soldiers that died in Iraq yesterday, how many of them were true volunteers, and how many felt forced to enlist because of the dismal job market?
That's completely irrelevant, and offtopic. And it's not even interesting. The job market today is so much better than almost anytime before. A 5.5 unemployment rate is superior to just about any other time in history. But get beyond that. The military is not made up of the lowest-class Americans. It is disproportionately middle-class. The bottom 25% of potential wage-earners/poorest family backgrounds are drastically underrepresented in the military. The average American solider would not otherwise be poor. The average American solider would be a 27-year old white suburban or rural professional.
As for discipline, you are scaring me.
Sorry the disciplien scares you. But that's not my fault.
Ever stop to think why (alot of the time, anyway) people force themselves to do unpleasant things?
Adults realize that sometimes you have to do unpleasant things to get what you want. I'd like to have nice things in life, economic security, the freedom to enjoy things on my own terms. However, I will not get that by slacking off, coming to work when I feel like it, and spending my money foolishly. I will get it by denying myself frivilous pleasures, saving my money and spending it wisely, and by creating a career which is impervious to the natural economic flucations presented by a turbulent world.
Maybe because other people are forcing them?
Ohh drat. You exposed the fascist corporate power structure in the United States, forcing people to do things they don't want to do so as to continue to prop up corporate fatcats. Here come the black helicopters.
Especially considering that it's mostly an attempt to prepare students for their corporate uniforms in the factory.
I have news for you. Most people don't work in factories.
Admit it. You hate the idea that someone in some circumstance may judge you by the way you look. You feel that no one has the right to judge you by your appearance.
The rich kids know who the poor kids are, and the poor know who the rich kids are.
You'd be suprised. My experiences are exactly opposite. Within your circle of friends that may in fact be true, but in the population a whole, you'd be entirely wrong.
2) This is a problem that can be fixed without uniforms.
I am sure. But a dress code, (not a uniform, a big difference), certainly is an easy way to alleviate man problems with one action.
3) Discipline is self-control, how can people learn self-control by allowing a bureacracy even more control over these kids?
Disciplne is taught, like all things. Discipline is conforming to something that otherwise you'd have no part of. Without discipline, we'd simply take the easiest course of least resistance. Having a dress code that requires you to look neat, to have clean clothes, to have groomed facial hair, to tuck your shirt in, to wear shoes that aren't crusted in mud, etc enforces specific characteristics which are desirable. It's very hard to sleep in to the last minute before class and still meet the dress code. It's very hard to not plan ahead and meet the dress code. These are things society wants in people. People who plan ahead. People who are discplined enough to make themselves do things which are otherwise unpleasant.
Let's face it here. At the end of the day, your argument is: "NOT FAIR, I WANT TO WEAR WHAT I WANT TO WEAR AND I WANT TO LOOK HOW I WANT TO LOOK!"
Unless your school somehow had a source of funding that allowed it to accept all it's students for free, it would necessarily have to have some cutoff for financial aid in order to survive
My grade school was funded by the attached Church. Any student who wished could attend. The advertised as such. Some years (when the public schools were publically blasted for sucking) we had standing room only practically.
In other words, unless your grade school took steps to bus kids in from the other side of town, it's not likely that they are as "diverse" as you claim that they were.
The school didn't bus. We had no bus. Kids came from all over town, from all over this area of the state. We weren't the only show in town, we were had sister schools that had the same policies.
So, chances are that if the kids attending this school lived around a Parish where people could afford to donate enough money to keep a school running free of charge to all students, would indicate that the area was doing fairly well and as a result that people in that area tended to make more money.
The alternate solution was that we spent 80% less per student on education than the local public school, and that combined with free or virtually free teachers, unmortgaged buildings and land, and generally simple style of teaching, a large very poor parish could scrape together the funds to support the school. That's the essence of the situation. The parish attached to the school was largely lower-to-middle-lower class. It was, however, a geographicall and population wise large parish. That's what saved us in terms of finances.
Even children in poverty are not wandering the streets eating out of garbage cans like you suggest. This isn't rural South America. I've been to the parts of Georgia you mention, and yes, trailer parks do exisit as well as what can charitiably called "shanty villages". Regardless, These kids are not wandering around eating out of tins cans and all that.
So, I really fail to see how you think that people can't teach themselves the majority of things that they know.
I am not claiming that some people aren't self-educating. But school is not about that, and rightly so. Left to each's own motivation to self-educate the simple fact remains that the vast majority of people would be less educated than they would be elsewise. Motivation is an issue. School is a structured place to provide a structured, paced, normalized setting. Yeah, I never enjoyed it much. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you trust the count of the observers more than the count of the individual people?
This would be bad. In areas where you had a largely one-sided party afflilation, you would have that party somehow always getting 100% of the votes.
Why? 10 people count the same 10 ballots a total of 10 times. If 9 out 10 ten where in the "Shamelessly Corrupt Party", all of the sudden 9 out of 10 would say "we got 100% of the votes", instead of, say, 90%. The one person in the other party comes in and says it was 9-to-1, and all of the sudden his count is the outlier and gets tossed.
It wouldn't have to be a 9-1 situation either. Let's say it 60/40 for one party. The "40" side would say they were the "60" side. All it would take for this to happen is for someone in the actual-60 party to miscount two votes, and then suddenly the 60/40 switches, and bamo. Tainted election.
Well, Tom Clancy books are regarded as fairly accurate.. whne you translate that to movies though...
It was discussed.
It was a hardware/asset monitoring tool that integrated with SNMP.. let's see.. I can't find a goole on it, but it was a company that IBM ended up buying, and probably dismantling.. really low tech, but it kept a hash of all the hardware info, and if any of it changed, and triggered and SNMP message..
I was onsite just for a short time, to help with a set of (surprise) performance issues. I can't take credit for any of the systems design or initial implementation.
You don't mention this, but are users able to execute downloaded programs? (either binaries, or Microsoft(tm) Office(r) macros? screensavers?) If so, there are still holes in the scheme....
Sorry. Didnt mention it. There was a list of approved binaries that the system enforced. Though between me and you it was pretty easy to get around. I mean, the binaries weren't matched by hash, just by name. So if you could get admin rights and overwrite a binary you could at least get your own binary into play.. overwrite calc.exe or whatnot. Still, it'd be non-trivial to get admin rights, copy the binary, and do any damage/copying.
Abuses like that require no great deal of output. They can happen just by memorizing an address + phone number. To guard against such activities, it's better to have occasional auditing of search terms entered into the database (which your example probably already does).
As far as I can see they did cover this. Their internal systems (designed by a friend) required every query, access, etc to be attached (and billed) to a client. That client got a list of everything searched against and with what terms. I know they did at least bi-monthly audits of the logs on that on front..
"Stealing" data from someone who doesn't own it is impossible.
Some of this data - aka in report form - was unique and therefore very valuable.
I disagree. I used to manage the IT for a smallish (about 24 workstations) background-checking law firm and essentially I have to make sure their data is more secure than the average shop.
A nice mix of employment policies, system policies, and hardware policies keeps everything on the up and up.
Internet access is heavily restricted to make sure that even if malicious code was introduced into the environment sensitive data can't go out - HTTP file uploading, P2P applications, FTP, etc is restricted.
Fields POST'd to websites are recorded and run daily against the various databases to make sure that the employees are not mailing sensitive information to themselves or others via a webmail (most webmail apps are blocked via the content filter, however, with proxies and what not you never know) or other method (posted A.C. style to slashdot for example).
The most sensitive records - bank accounts, clients personal information, etc is stored in a database that, besides being physically secured, is on an encypted filesystem. Data is never displayed casually in any of their internal applications - you have to specifically take steps to get to the sensitive data - and every access is recorded and audited. The audit log is provided to the client. If an employee was fiddling around and access data inappropriately their client would know it.
The workstations do in fact each have CD burners because most users need to use them on a daily basis to distribute (encrypted) background check reports to the clients. The internal applications are the only ones with permission to write to these devices, and the contents of every CD are hashed, recorded, and audited. Any file that is on the CD but doesn't match by hash a file in the database is duplicated, stored securely and flagged for review. Every CD-R in the building is pre-embossed with a serial number, and every CD-R is doled out by a responsible party. A log is kept of who takes what serial numbered CDs, and each client must sign-off when he/she recieves their CD(s). Every CD is accounted for at the end of the week.
Every workstation is secured to the cement floor, and housed in a serious case (not plastic, but steel and/or annodized alum.) There is one floppy disk drive - an external USB model, kept onsite just in case.
External computers are not allowed on the network. Every machine on the network is allowed only by MAC, and IPSEC is required on every single device.
Print jobs are saved, recorded, and audited.
USB ports are, for now, phyiscally disabled. Every machine is setup with real-time logging of chasis intrusion systems. Intrusions are recorded and audited.
No users are permitted by software policy or by employment policy to login to a desktop with network administrator rights. Clearing any system or security logs requires a paper trail signed off on by a witness who is an officer of the company.
The security precautions went on and on. Backup tapes were encrypted, andd the entire backup device was hardened: the SCSI cable was spot welded to the back of the machine, and snaked through a stainless steel 1" pipe that was spot welded to back of the tape drive. The autoloader catridge mechanism was equipped with a key, which was replaced on purchase by a locksmith with a more robust tumbler. The cartridges were stored in the same safe that held the really valuable stuff we sometimes held in escrow. A random person from a pool of five had to change the tapes weekly accomponied by an officer of the company.
Basically, when I was running this place's IT, things were pretty tight. All the security steps were put in place because of a few dozen incidents in the late 1990's were the assets of the company were greatly abused by a few bad-actor employees. Clients including the FBI and CIA were furious beyond belief when they learned that various databases had been used to get dirt on ex-girlfriends, business foes, etc. One employee stole the identity of
That's not a good answer.
In a corporate network, spanning, say, 8 offices, policies are seperate and distinct from what gets implemented by the hands-on ground-force IT staff.
By setting a network-wide policy, you still give the local IT people the ability to use other USB devices, allow *some* users the ability to use USB devices, allow other non-storage devices (aka printers, keyboards, mice, etc), and generally apply a more fine grained approach than simply the "rip out the USB port" tactic.
You think a simple switch of leaders is suddenly going to get rid of all the ill-will we have generated around the world? You are dreaming. Bush pissed away our international reputation, that will take many years to rebuild.
You outta take a few moments and think about why Bush has pissed off so many world leaders while Clinton was so loved by so many world leaders.
If you start thinking personality than stop, that's not it.
Why would so many world leaders hate Bush?
I think it is clear to the unbiased reader that there is at least the possibility that Katherine Harris' actions could meet that standard
I think I agree. There is clearly that apperance.
I am saying that to get out of the propaganda department though, what Moore needs to do is make a clear allegation.
It's an age old strategy: if you throw enough out there some of it will stick.
It is not absurd for Michael Moore to offer a clear, concise claim.
For example,
Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
What is Michael Moore alleging here? That Katherine Harris rigged the vote counting? That she stole ballots and replaced them with her own modified ones? That she obstructed the process? That she rushed to judgement? That she was corrupted by the Bush administration? What is he alleging regarding the company in question? That the company was hired with the directive to purge blacks from the voting rolls? That they were incompetent? That they were staffed by Bush operatives? That they colluded with other state offical to violate voter rights? That they acted with blatant racism? Or that they weren't careful enough to safeguard against voters being removed from the rolls improperly? What is he saying?
Michael Moore is intentionally vague here, as in other places, allowing only inuendo to make his claim. Then he can link to some articles which back up basic assertions: Katherine Harris was secretary of state, and co-chariman of the Bush campaign in Florida. Check. The State hired a company that whose owner bought a company which was founded by a strong Republican backer. Check. But where is the article about collusion? Where is the investigation of what type of arrangement was made? Where is the proof? He never provides any proof of wrongdoing! Just suspicious circumstances.
In court, this type of argument would be tossed out. It's nothing. There is no substance provided, instead, insuiations are drawn and the viewer/reader left to conjure about what might have happened.
That's funny. A neutral point of view. What on earth is that?
Statements like I quoted from Mr. Moore are not neutral. They express an opinon. For example, in the quote above he writes that you can usually tell "them by their skin color", right? He is making a judgement, that the felon list was compiled based on color. Okay, fine.
Neutral Point of View is an important idea. It means presenting ideas, facts, and opinions without making a judgement to which one is correct or incorrect. It means that the writer or speaker must present all views fairly.
So, instead of saying:
"Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
He could say something along the lines of:
"Katherine Harris, co-chairman of the Bush campaign in Florida as well Secretary of State was in charge of certifying the vote and supervising the counties vote counting officals. Criticism was raised by the United States Civil Rights Commission and others alleging the State had improperly hired a firm with Republican ties to remove felons from the voter registration rolls. Additionally, the comission claims that black and minority voters may have been targetted because of their statistical likelihood to vote for the Democratic candidate. State officals deny impropriety and point to the companies relatively high-success rate. Supporters of the decision to hire the company, including the Bush campaign, acknowledge that the data may have been faulty, and credit county officals for suspending use of the modified lists in 20 of Florida's counties."
That's the difference. In the second excerpt, facts not presented are excised. Multiple points of view are presented. Allegations are clearly made, and names named.
Is it Fox' point of view? Bush's point of view? Saddam's point of view? Kerry's point of view?
Neutral Point of View is all of those views. It is Bush's view, Kerry's view, and Saddam's view, rolled into one statement that examines each, provides relevant context and supporting materials.
An important aspect of any reasonable political system is to acknowledge that there are no truths (except in math and physics).
Why math and physics? For example, in Math, if you assume that 1=1, but that also 1 != 1, then you have nothing, and no truths, and everything is subjective. Same with physics. What rules do we follow? If you reduce things enough, the traditional rules fall away, and new rules must be invented to explain behavior.
What you are suggesting is that there is no objective truth. You should read into Natural Law which proposes that certain things are immanent in nature. Your claim that there are no objective truths is a clearly post-modern perspective, with which you are entitled to believe.
The problem with post-modern thinking in terms of politics is that no idea or policy or action is considered to better than the other. Why vote for one candidate over the other? Either one produces equally debateable results, with neither result being any better than the other. You have to be open that your result is inferior and superior to mine at the same time. If there are no objective truths, you are going to have an awfully hard time arguing for a specific course of action.
You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.
That's right. Which is why we should in fact just flip a coin between candidates, because in the end, no one's interpretation of one set of results is better than anyone eles's. It doesn't matter who wins, because, in the end, it's all a matter of inerpretation and individual policies or actions do not have any value or weight.
You agree, correct?
But, you are right. It's not democratic, it *is* capitalistic though. What would you prefer? That the government pay for some sort of rebuttal?
No, no, it's not capitalistic.
McCain-Feingold says that even if you have the money, if you not on the approved list of persons allowed to buy tv-time, you can't buy it.
It's not democratic, and it's not capitialistic. Michael Moore gets a pass because his political ad is in the form of a documentary, which is more expensive to make than a political ad. Get it now? If you get 100 people together, and each donates 1,000 to buy a poltical ad, those people are unable by law to buy that ad, but Michael Moore is allowed to.
We get our international respect back in only 3 days? SWEET!
Yes.
In three days we get our $200,000,000,000 back that we spend on a war based on a lie?
Yes.
In three days we can have the 9000 wounded soldiers healed? and In three days we can get our 1000 dead soldiers back?
No. Of course not.
Of course the damage that is done is done. But as far as to undo the damage, ie, to undo the laws, regulations, etc that people disagree with? That'll take not more than 3 days if they wanted it.
But none of that matters. Congress will still be Republican (very likely, maybe more than 90%, but at least, 90%).
How many terrorism related deaths have there been in the US since 9/11.
Now, does that number match what you would have perceived on 9/12?
The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.
Right, if you read up a few lines, you'll notice that I am advocating moving the bar up on dress codes. What passes for acceptable today is unbelievable, with 12 yr old girls looking like total sluts, etc etc. Its beyond the pale, and distracts from the only purpose of going to school: education.
Any damage Bush has done will be easily reversed assuming you have a willing Congress.
Two, maybe three days of work and basically you can erase the entire Bush presidency.
The problem of course from your point-of-view is that regardless of whether Bush wins or loses the Congress will, with 90% certainity, be even more Republican than it is now.
Republicans will have a chance to respond in whatever way Moore talks. Do you mean Christian Coalition hasn't made any decent movies during its whole existance?
No, actually they won't. If Moore gets his movie on TV the day before any election, Republicans will have no means to respond. Since they can't take out ads to refute his points, it seems unlikely that an individual republican without co-ordination from the RNC or the Bush campaign could put together a refutation, get it filmed, and get it to air between no and then.
Can you guarantee that?
FOX is in it for one reason: money. The major networks + CNN, et all have been very critical of conservative causes. It's only a matter of time until someone with conservative ideas and money comes along and grabs that market and its money.
FOX does what is necessary to get money. For example, the FOX network airs shows that are very racy, and basically offensive to conservative values. Why? It's profitable. Compared to FOX, ABC/CBS/NBC are uber-conservative in the shows they air.
The facts are cited yes, but not the conclusions.
"X" is a fact. (link here)
"Y" is a fact. (link here)
"Z" is a fact. (link here)
However, when you then say that "X->Y->Z and therefore W is true, and see the links that backup X, Y, and Z for proof."
The test here, really, is this:
If Michael Moore had of presented his film with neutral point of view, would most people agree with his conclusions presented seperately?
I'll give you an example:
Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
The links he use only provide casual relation of the facts, they are not evidence of his claim. He links to an article which says that the owner of a company purchased by the owner of a subsidary who prepared the felon list gave $100,000 to the RNC. Is Michael Moore suggesting that the $100,000 was quid pro quo for putting blacks on the list? Is he suggesting that the man who sold his company to a company who has a subsidary that prepared the list had influence over the list? He doesn't say. He uses inference and the "ohh, of course there was collusion" factor to make his actual claim. The links are just simple distractions here.
Likewise, he doesn't address any counter-arguments. For example, that the "vote counting" woman in fact does no vote counting. For example, that the people who actually supervise the vote counts are elected officals of the county they work for. For example, that most counties in Florida did not use the felon listed. This presents a serious credibility problem. If you read the refutation points that are linked, it is interesting to note that race was specifically disallowed as a criteria, and that no evidence has ever been presented to counter this. But again, Moore doesn't address any of this, and instead, tries to prove wrong doing by inference only.
So, basically, what I am saying is this: having the articles that back up his quotes, figures, etc are nice, but they only backup the individual statements - not his combined synthesized conclusions. That is a major flaw.
No, it would only prevent people taking out ads to refute the airing of the documentary. Since this isn't technically a political ad and doesn't endorse or mention a "candidate", it's a-okay. But mind you, the RNC or a Bush supporter can't take out ads to refute the points raised in the film.
The problem is that Michael Moore - a private citizen - has a right to get this on the air. But thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to produce and publicize a documentary doesn't have the ability to respond. Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign.
That's not very democratic.
However, uniforms are one of the goals of all the worst fascists
How many times must I tell you. I am not advocating Uniforms. Get it through your head. There is a vast difference between Uniforms and having a dress code. A uniform is when everyone wears the same clothing, perhaps with two variations for the sexes. A dress code is setting limits and paramters on the manner in which you dress. It's a big difference. If you would stop wondering about fascists and uniforms you might notice that I am not speaking of uniforms.
Of the 6 soldiers that died in Iraq yesterday, how many of them were true volunteers, and how many felt forced to enlist because of the dismal job market?
That's completely irrelevant, and offtopic. And it's not even interesting. The job market today is so much better than almost anytime before. A 5.5 unemployment rate is superior to just about any other time in history. But get beyond that. The military is not made up of the lowest-class Americans. It is disproportionately middle-class. The bottom 25% of potential wage-earners/poorest family backgrounds are drastically underrepresented in the military. The average American solider would not otherwise be poor. The average American solider would be a 27-year old white suburban or rural professional.
As for discipline, you are scaring me.
Sorry the disciplien scares you. But that's not my fault.
Ever stop to think why (alot of the time, anyway) people force themselves to do unpleasant things?
Adults realize that sometimes you have to do unpleasant things to get what you want. I'd like to have nice things in life, economic security, the freedom to enjoy things on my own terms. However, I will not get that by slacking off, coming to work when I feel like it, and spending my money foolishly. I will get it by denying myself frivilous pleasures, saving my money and spending it wisely, and by creating a career which is impervious to the natural economic flucations presented by a turbulent world.
Maybe because other people are forcing them?
Ohh drat. You exposed the fascist corporate power structure in the United States, forcing people to do things they don't want to do so as to continue to prop up corporate fatcats. Here come the black helicopters.
Especially considering that it's mostly an attempt to prepare students for their corporate uniforms in the factory.
I have news for you. Most people don't work in factories.
Admit it. You hate the idea that someone in some circumstance may judge you by the way you look. You feel that no one has the right to judge you by your appearance.
The rich kids know who the poor kids are, and the poor know who the rich kids are.
You'd be suprised. My experiences are exactly opposite. Within your circle of friends that may in fact be true, but in the population a whole, you'd be entirely wrong.
2) This is a problem that can be fixed without uniforms.
I am sure. But a dress code, (not a uniform, a big difference), certainly is an easy way to alleviate man problems with one action.
3) Discipline is self-control, how can people learn self-control by allowing a bureacracy even more control over these kids?
Disciplne is taught, like all things. Discipline is conforming to something that otherwise you'd have no part of. Without discipline, we'd simply take the easiest course of least resistance. Having a dress code that requires you to look neat, to have clean clothes, to have groomed facial hair, to tuck your shirt in, to wear shoes that aren't crusted in mud, etc enforces specific characteristics which are desirable. It's very hard to sleep in to the last minute before class and still meet the dress code. It's very hard to not plan ahead and meet the dress code. These are things society wants in people. People who plan ahead. People who are discplined enough to make themselves do things which are otherwise unpleasant.
Let's face it here. At the end of the day, your argument is: "NOT FAIR, I WANT TO WEAR WHAT I WANT TO WEAR AND I WANT TO LOOK HOW I WANT TO LOOK!"
Unless your school somehow had a source of funding that allowed it to accept all it's students for free, it would necessarily have to have some cutoff for financial aid in order to survive
My grade school was funded by the attached Church. Any student who wished could attend. The advertised as such. Some years (when the public schools were publically blasted for sucking) we had standing room only practically.
In other words, unless your grade school took steps to bus kids in from the other side of town, it's not likely that they are as "diverse" as you claim that they were.
The school didn't bus. We had no bus. Kids came from all over town, from all over this area of the state. We weren't the only show in town, we were had sister schools that had the same policies.
So, chances are that if the kids attending this school lived around a Parish where people could afford to donate enough money to keep a school running free of charge to all students, would indicate that the area was doing fairly well and as a result that people in that area tended to make more money.
The alternate solution was that we spent 80% less per student on education than the local public school, and that combined with free or virtually free teachers, unmortgaged buildings and land, and generally simple style of teaching, a large very poor parish could scrape together the funds to support the school. That's the essence of the situation. The parish attached to the school was largely lower-to-middle-lower class. It was, however, a geographicall and population wise large parish. That's what saved us in terms of finances.
Even children in poverty are not wandering the streets eating out of garbage cans like you suggest. This isn't rural South America. I've been to the parts of Georgia you mention, and yes, trailer parks do exisit as well as what can charitiably called "shanty villages". Regardless, These kids are not wandering around eating out of tins cans and all that.
So, I really fail to see how you think that people can't teach themselves the majority of things that they know.
I am not claiming that some people aren't self-educating. But school is not about that, and rightly so. Left to each's own motivation to self-educate the simple fact remains that the vast majority of people would be less educated than they would be elsewise. Motivation is an issue. School is a structured place to provide a structured, paced, normalized setting. Yeah, I never enjoyed it much. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have value.