(Wise people...) say less than they know. I might think Katherine Harris dresses like a scarecrow, but if I worked in law or
politics I wouldn't go around saying so. What goes around, comes around.
What an odd choice of an example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "what goes around, comes around" presumably wouldn't be the main reason why you wouldn't sound off to your law or politics colleagues about your fascinating personal views regarding Katherine Harris's fashion sense.
The reason you wouldn't do that is because you would never want to embarrass yourself by advertising the fact that you judge a woman by how she dresses, and are so superficial as to conclude something about a woman's character from her level of sexual attractiveness. While your hypothetical colleagues would presumably be busying themselves studying the legal or political issues surrounding Ms. Harris and her job performance, becoming well-versed and erudite on the subject and legal precedents and political issues involved, just picture yourself chiming in with a silly comment like "And she dresses like such a scarecrow, huh!" What would your colleagues think about such a comment?
It has nothing to do with whether you'd be "informing" (saying all that you know) on Ms. Harris at all, because such a comment reveals more about you than it does about her. (You don't "know" that Ms. Harris dresses like a scarecrow, you simply think so.) So the reason you (presumably) wouldn't want to make that comment is much different from any reasons for not wanting to become an "informer" (which dilemma arises in cases where one has actual limited information to share, such as "he said he was gonna kill someone", which may or may not be out of context or incomplete. Your statement, "I think she dresses like a scarecrow", doesn't even qualify...).
In short, the reason you would never say such a thing around your legal or political office is because you wouldn't want to advertise the fact that you are an unprofessional superficial boob.
So either there aren't any coverups, or coverups are only used for really important stuff, and they work, and the
opposition is in on it....
I can buy this statement as a description of things. It is worth pointing out, however, that you haven't quite defined what sort of issue qualifies as "important". And that may be the crux of the matter.
Perhaps an "important" issue is simply, One that the powers-that-be would really really like to cover up and therefore call upon all their resources to do so. (An example of a relatively non-"important" issue which, therefore?, was not successfully covered up might be: Lewinsky)
But then this all becomes circular again: the government only covers up "important" stuff successfully. What qualifies as "important"? Anything the government really really thinks is worth covering up! (And therefore successfully covers up.)
Which brings us back where we started, unfortunately. Oh well.
Read my post again. The original poster claimed, "the government simply aren't able to suppress political
stories and reporting, at least not in any legal or visible way."
I simply rephrased this statement in the contrapositive: "when [emphasis now added] the government does suppress political stories and reporting,
it does it in ways which are illegal and/or invisible."
Note especially the use of "when". I did not assert that the government does cover things up (i.e. I did not insist on the existence of a cat on my desk, as you seem to think); I merely pointed out that if (ok, I probably should have used "if" and not "when") the government were covering something up, it would (according to the original post) have certain properties, namely, be illegal and/or invisible. In keeping with your analogy, I was describing what the cat would be like if it were indeed on my desk, which it may or may not be. This all follows quite logically from the original poster's claim. The point of the exercise was to expose said claim for its empty content, and nothing more.
The poster in essence said "don't worry, if the government covers stuff up, they at least hide it well." Which is true and everything, but is simply not a valid reason to believe that the government never covers anything up and/or that the question is of no concern.
All that being said, your point about this getting slightly off topic is well taken....;) For the record, I have no doubt that state funding doesn't necessarily corrupt the editorial process, and conversely, "independence" (in an economic sense) is no guarantee of impartiality. In my opinion one can find incontrovertible proof of the latter statement, for example, among the major U.S. media outlets.
Let me get this straight, are you saying you disagree with the contents of a post because the poster reminds you of someone else you disagreed with too?
And because the post reminds you of people who want to ban Halloween?
You're not even addressing the actual substance of a post at all. At least if you simply resorted to personal ad hominem attacks, you comments would be related in a direct way to the post. How is someone supposed to respond when you say they remind you of Ayn Rand? "No, I don't"? There is no rational response, but then again that's just because you have not attempted rational discourse in the first place.
"the USA of 'Chinatown'"?
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I've seen Chinatown (twice, I think), and I read your post twice, but I don't quite know what you're trying to say.
What should I, everyday American, do in response to the movie Chinatown? Enlighten me. Complete the sentence, "Because of the things X, Y, and Z which happened in the movie Chinatown, people should do A, B, and C immediately if not sooner."
I mean, what about Chinatown is supposed to be so representative of the US as a whole? People impregnating their own daughters (a huge national issue)? What?
and the government simply aren't able to suppress political
stories and reporting, at least not in any legal or visible way.
Interesting statement. I take it this means that, when the government does suppress political stories and reporting, it does it in ways which are illegal and/or invisible.
(I mean, that's what you're saying, right? Essentially, you're saying "The government never covers anything up, because I never see any evidence of it!" Which...uh...kinda misses the point, right?:)
i'd bet that they're expending them on suppressing and
controlling things far more worrying than what their funded media are producing.
I'll take that bet. I'll bet that you are wrong and that the government pays special attention to media output regarding its actions.
I don't know much about the UK, but here in the U.S. it has been reported that during the Yugoslavia, uh, bombing, the Army had special "advisors" over at CNN.
And you think it's a good idea to get the media even more in bed with the government? The mind boggles.
Re:Anti-Mainstream Mainstream is the Mainstream.
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 1
If only Hollywood were not dominated
by commercial concerns, and existed to create good films for their own sake, I don't think this vacancy and and
the other problems I have mentioned would be a problem.
This is a common idea and I suppose I have no disagreement with it, per se.
My problem is with your proposed "solution" - to wit, put the government in charge of the movie business. Do you really want this?
No one will argue with your charge that the need to be "commercial" can produce very shlocky trashy output. (On the other hand, this is not the same thing as saying that all movies produced within a commercial system are bad, right?)
My problem is with the notion that movies (or any art) produced on the government's dime are necessarily any better. All right, movies in Hollywood serve one master (the almighty dollar, the mass lowest-common-denominator moviegoer). But art produced PBS-style serves another master (primarily, the bureaucrats who have to approve the grants; and, ultimately, the tastes of snobbish upper-middle-class cocktail-party-goers).
This just replaces one master with another. Why is the second one necessarily better? Is 4 Weddings and a Funeral really better than Fight Club? Is Shallow Grave really better than The Sixth Sense?
In fact, let's just expose this "let's have the government fund art so it's not subject to market forces" mantra for what it really is. It is upper-middle-class snobs petitioning the government to take money away from the working class to fund their tastes.
It is essentially a transfer payment from the lower classes to the rich (who, after all, could just fund PBS-type ventures on their own if they really think such things are so important).
It would have been better if you had made a longer list.
The charge that Bush is "allowing polluters to regulate themselves" is so vague and ambiguous and disconnected from reality that it is not necessary for me to "defend" it. All I need to do is point to that sentence and say "you need to elaborate a little before I can be convinced that you are sincere here".
What precisely do you mean by saying he is "allowing polluters to regulate themselves"?
Let me try to think through what you could possibly mean by this. Let's see. Regulations, technically, should only come from acts of Congress (since they are laws). Can you be saying that President Bush has disbanded Congress, put Polluters in the place of Congress, and let Polluters write laws instead, from now on? But no - that's just silly.
Of course another source of Regulations is from federal agencies (in this case, the EPA). For some reason a federal agency is allowed to write something called a Regulation, publish it in the Federal Register, wait for "comments", and Presto! it becomes a law.
Now, personally, I find this practice abominable in a supposedly free and "democratic" society. Laws are supposed to come from a Congress whose members are representatives of the people - not from unelected bureaucrats in the EPA.
But regardless, that's the way it works nowadays, and therefore when you speak of Regulations against Polluters, you are probably talking about the regulations which come from the EPA. So, what can you be saying? Can you be saying that Bush has fired everyone in the EPA and replaced them with Polluters?
Is that what you are saying? But no - that's just silly. You don't honestly believe that, do you?
So what are you saying?
One more possibility I can think of. One method of "regulating" something is to punish people by fining them. For example, if you are driving your car and you exceed the speed limit, you are violating a regulation (the speed limit) and you can be ticketed and fined. In one sense, you are punished for violating the Regulation. In another sense, the government is letting you regulate yourself, because if you want to, you can pay the fine and violate the regulation. You see, the Regulation against excessive speed does not prevent you from speeding in any absolute sense, it simply discourages you from speeding.
This is probably the kind of thing you have in mind when you accuse President Bush of "allowing polluters to regulate themselves". (Correct me if I'm wrong.) There is a system in place, involving "pollution credits" and quotas and (yes) fines, and, as I understand things, it is the method of pollution reduction which Bush advocated in Texas and (conceivably) could advocate as President.
You know something? I don't have a problem with that.
Do you? If so, explain why your method of pollution reduction is obviously superior. And explain why anyone who disagrees with you is necessarily a "scumbag". Thanks.
And everyone, except for you, already knew that W. Bush is a scumbag.
Demonstrably untrue. I, for one, do not think he is a scumbag.
Maybe you're missing it, but he's
proving everyone right.
How has he proven himself to be a scumbag? Be specific. And I assume you realize that simply doing things in government which you disagree with because of your ideology does not make someone a "scumbag".
It's a lot like how the republicans were hell-bent on crucifying Clinton before he even took the oath of office,
huh.
I am a Republican, and this is not true of myself. The only reason I turned against clinton is that he committed crimes and abused the power of his office. I understand, however, that Democrats think that this is not possible - that no Democrat can ever commit a crime or be corrupt and therefore any opposition to a Democrat can not be honest and principled. You have your biases, and I understand them. That doesn't make your statements accurate.
What goes around comes around, or so they say.
As is common you make no actual attempt to defend the bias. Instead you appeal to this idea that "your side does it too", which, even if it were true, would not make it right.
Yeah, we could have a racist mysogynistic theocrat like John Ashcroft enforcing our laws. Oh, wait.
Explain exactly why you think John Ashcroft is a "racist mysogynistic theocrat", and give details. You don't want to come off sounding like you are good for nothing but echoing demagogic talking points spewed forth by the Democrats you see on TV, now, do you?
For example, the charge of "racist" usually comes from Ashcroft's opposition to the nomination of a man named Ronnie White (who happens to be black) to the federal bench.
Explain why you think Ronnie White should have been made a federal judge, specifically addressing that one case of the murdered sherriff's deputies and wife. Also explain why you think any opposition to White's judgeship was intellectually dishonest and necessarily based on racism.
I'm sorry, this term "lost" votes you are using...is that the same thing as a non-vote?
For example, during the post-election mess we heard lots about "overvotes". An "overvote", of course, being a special kind of non-vote.
Similarly, there were the ballots with no holes punched but which had "dimpled chads". Once again, this is merely a particular type of non-vote.
So when you brag about some newspaper article that talks about "lost votes", I just want to clarify: are you talking about non-votes, as in those other two examples? Thanks.
That is not an actual question. What about him, specifically?
Billions of dollars of "Faith" based money?
Another non-question. Those "billions of dollars" are normally simply called "welfare money", and what's your problem with the government handing it out to institutions which are proven to produce results? Would you rather the money be given to incompetent organizations who would waste it?
And if he hadn't have signed it, all of the puritanical
hypocrite-Republicans would have been crying that the President was immoral anyways.
So let me get this straight. You don't like the law, you don't like the fact that Congress passed it, you wish the law didn't exist....but you refuse to blame bill clinton for signing the law (when a veto would have held up, because the R's did not have a veto-proof majority). Why?
Because "the puritanical
hypocrite-Republicans would have been crying that the President was immoral anyways."
In other words, you would rather see a law which you abhor pass than see your beloved worshipped El Presidente criticized. How twisted is that?
This law was created by Rebuplicans, not Democrats. Just look at it. Do you know what conservative means?
There is no arguing the fact that it was passed by Republicans, since they were the majority and so it would not have passed otherwise.
However, it is not clear that you know what "conservative" means. Perhaps you would like to share with the rest of the class. For example, I know what conservative means (I am one), and I don't see what being conservative is supposed to have to do with supporting the "Children's Internet Protection Act" in your mind.
[My question...] Who are you going to complain to now? It's Bush and a split Congress? I suppose you can say its
all Bill Clinton's fault...for the next 20 years. Do you really think that Bush has that much more
integrity? Oh. That's right, he has heart. And he's willing to sell it to the highest bidder.
Um, good "question". (Actually by my count that's about 3 questions, but whatever.) I'll take them one at a time:
Who are you going to complain to now? I don't understand the question. Who do you think I was complaining to before, and why do you think this will change? If I have any complaining to do I expect I will complain to the same people I always have; does that answer your question?
It's Bush and a split Congress? Hmmm, upon closer inspection this isn't even a question.
I suppose you can say its
all Bill Clinton's fault...for the next 20 years. You suppose I can say what's all bill clinton's fault? What are you talking about? The things which are bill clinton's fault (like technology transfers to China), I will say they are bill clinton's fault, and blame him for any repercussions which may arise. The things which aren't (Baltimore winning the Super Bowl), I won't. Fair enough?
Do you really think that Bush has that much more
integrity? Yes, I do. I think Bush has more integrity in his little pinky than bill clinton has displayed in his entire life. (And this doesn't even mean I think Bush has a whole lot of integrity in general; it's just that clinton set the bar so low.)
Further, if you don't see this about clinton then this can only mean you are ignorant of his crimes and corruption. Which is fine with me, of course (you have the right to remain ignorant), but doesn't mean you should be taken very seriously when you sound off about the subject like this.
Oh. That's right, he has heart. And he's willing to sell it to the highest bidder.
Explain, please. Who did GWBush sell his heart to? Just what the heck are you talking about? Do you even know, or do you just enjoy wallowing in your ignorance so much that you prefer making vague unsubstantiated charges to backing your assertions up with facts?
Who said Bill Clinton was anyone's leader? Everyone knows the leader of the US is Alan
Greenspan. You are wrong on both accounts. (Who is the one who doesn't remember his High School Government lessons here?)
Neither one is (or was) our "leader". Alan Greenspan is the Fed Chairman (a position not even mentioned in the Constitution), while bill clinton was nothing more than the President (the head of the executive branch of the federal government (which has 3 branches), and commander-in-chief of the armed forces). But "leader"? No, sorry. You must be thinking of some other country.
Re:Computers don't do squat for education.
on
Kids and Computers
·
· Score: 1
You overlook the possibility that learning how to do arithmetic or learning how to spell are edifying, educational, beneficial activities in and of themselves.
An analogy exists when it comes to physical fitness. There is no societal or other essential purpose which makes it necessary for a man to lie down on a bench and push a heavy object above him with his arms. Yet thousands do it every day; it's called "working out" and (in moderation of course) it is (correctly) viewed as a healthy, beneficial activity. The analogy of your argument in this respect would be a little like you saying to a man who stays in shape by working out, "You don't need to do these things for your subsistence, so why do them?" Just stay at home and veg on the sofa watching videos of people working out, I guess?
The fact is that doing arithmetic, in and of itself, is a beneficial activity and is a necessary component of any education which is going to contain a mathematical component. It trains the human brain to recognize patterns in numbers. This is a necessary step if one wants to go on to become educated in any scientifically-related subject, just as calisthenics and stretching are necessary if one is going to participate in a football game.
The existence (and likely continued existence) of calculators and spell-checkers do not change this fact.
Mr. Katz, why don't you see how wrong you are?
on
Kids and Computers
·
· Score: 1
To their credit, many commenters have touched on this already, but it bears repeating:
Why is "access to computers" supposed to be so important to kids that we are supposed to drop whatever else we are doing (including, apparently, teaching them reading, writing and arithmetic) and make sure every kid is able to play Quake?
Have you ever questioned this assumption of yours, Mr. Katz?
The ingredients for having a healthy skepticism are right there in the "study" you cite. In addition, your loaded use of language and terminology (in trying to "prove" how "important" an issue this is) actually deserve a deeper analysis than perhaps you are willing. For example:
Wealthier kids have access to research,
free music, challenging games, educational and social opportunities online and
the better jobs of the new economy.
Translation: a kid with a computer can (a) crib a paper from somewhere on the web to hand in tomorrow, then (b) (c) (d) waste the rest of his free time using Napster, playing Quake, and hanging around chatrooms. Why is this supposed to be a good thing, Mr. Katz?
An amazing seventy per cent of American households
with children ages 2 to 17 have Net access, says the report....
If that number is so "amazing" then just what are you complaining about, Mr. Katz?
Access to computing -- to RPG and other forms of
gaming, search engines, IM, file-sharing systems -- shapes creativity,
vocabuliary, political awareness, culture and common language, not to mention
economic opportunity.
Now this is just a load of semi-mystical and starry-eyed bunk. Playing Diablo 2 "shapes creativity"? Typing "Britney Spears naked" into Google helps one's "vocabuliary" [sic]? What is "file-sharing systems" supposed to mean - messing around with freenet?
Do you really believe this stuff Katz? Do you really believe that (a) it's crucial to their development for adolescents to do these things, and (b) it's some kind of civil rights travesty that poor kids don't?
From the study:
For young boys, games are the dominant form of computer use.
Aha! Here it is, Mr. Katz. The silver bullet that shoots your entire thesis right through the heart. Why don't you see that?
I'll go through it slowly for you: If GAMES are the dominant form of computer use, then what the hell is so crucial about computers to a kid's education? Can you tell me with a straight face?
There are concerns among educators and psychologists about the 7 to 9
percent of American children who play computer games for more than
30 hours a week.
Yet you want to increase that percentage by making sure that poor kids get themselves hooked on Everquest too!
Not surprisingly, the more technology is available in the home, the more time
kids spend in front of screens.
So why don't you ever carry these (completely unsurprising) "findings" of this study to their logical conclusion? More computers = more time spent in front of computers, much of it wasted. (No matter what you may insist, game playing and instant messaging and web searching do not contribute to a child's education, unless you have a very warped concept of education!)
"Efforts to ensure
equal access to computer-related learning opportunities at school must move
beyond a concern with the number of computers in different schools toward an
emphasis on how well those computers are being used to help children develop
intellectual competencies and technical skills," said the Packard Foundation
study.
This is actually a fairly sober and supportable quote. Why do you take the trouble to include this quote in your article when you seem to completely miss its point? The authors of this study are specifically saying how computers are used is more important than "closing the digital divide". Yet your entire article seems to be about how important it is to "close the digital divide"!
Bush
says he wants education to be a major priority in his administration, but his
proposals, which were outlined this week, focus on literacy testing and
accountability -- they don't even mention technology or computing.
That is a good thing, Mr. Katz, and I am pleasantly surprised to see that this administration is taking this approach. Your unwritten assumption all along seems to be "education = computers". Screw reading, screw math, screw history. Do you understand how perverted this is?
. Few people
in the new or old administration -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- seems to
get that the most powerful moral issue affecting many kids and the Net isn't that
they are online too much, but that so many aren't online at all, or find their Net
and Web lives bounded by disparities in family income.
This is a very bold assertion on your part. I happen to disagree with practically every single word of it, but I have to admit that it is an interesting statement. The problem is, you don't back it up. What you should do is write an article explaining, in clear terms, why you believe this. Why is the "most powerful moral issue" affecting kids the fact that they aren't spending enough time on the Net? To me this seems perverse, so I admit it is a provocative statement. One that deserves more justification that you give it here. Is it just the fact that you assume, because this is Slashdot, that everyone here agrees with you? (I am pleasantly surprised to see, by some of the comments, that this is not true, by the way.)
their Net
and Web lives bounded by disparities in family income.
Or maybe this is the crux of the matter.
Jonathan Katz has discovered the astounding and shocking fact of the real world - that rich people get more stuff!
Horror! Now that I think about it, you're right Mr. Katz. Rich people do have more computers! (And more cars. Better houses. Better food. Better furniture. Shall I go on?)
Is all this misty-eyed rhetoric and unsupported assertions nothing more than a thinly-disguised, old-fashioned class-warfare screed?
The "digital divide" is bad (why?) because poor people have less computers than rich people, and that's bad. We simply must do something about the fact that rich people are richer than poor people!
I knew it. Someone's starting to blame Bush for a recession which began before he even won the primary, and (if a Slashdot'er can be honest with himself for just a second) probably traces its ultimate roots back to the Microsoft anti-trust case. I knew this would happen.
Give me a break.
By the way, your facts aren't even correct. When the election was on hold (because of some Gore protest), the market went down. Whenever it looked like things might move forward (Bush winning this or that legal victory), it would spike up. I witnessed this phenomenon with my own eyes as I watched one of the myriad court announcements go in favor of Bush and, at the bottom of the screen, watched NASDAQ climb 100 points or so within a minute of the announcement.
So, don't give me this crap about Bush causing a recession before he's even in there. It's bunk and you know it.
Then again, you're probably one of those people who try to give clinton the credit for the recovery that began a year and a half before he got into office, too. So maybe you don't know how much bunk you're spewing, who knows....
Your point seems to kind of gloss over the FACT that the US Supreme Court actively interfered in the
post-election shenanigans to ensure that Bush would take office, whether or not he actually won the vote.
It is unclear which point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that the election mess was evidence that the separation of powers are not always respected?
If so, I agree. The election mess was caused by an out-of-control Florida Supreme Court. First they illegally and unconstitutionally extended the deadline for numbers to be reported. Then they illegally and unconstitutionally decided to order yet another recount (of so-called "undervotes", which are actually more accurately described as Non-Votes.)
Both times they overstepped their bounds, usurping the role of the Legislative branch (the Constitution gives full authority to the state legislature when it comes to selecting electors) and the Executive branch (it was the Secretary of State's sworn duty to enforce the law, and the Florida Supreme Court prevented her from doing it.)
And yes, both times they were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court because their actions were inexcusable and, frankly, downright insane.
The U.S. Supreme Court, then, simply upheld the separation of powers when they stepped in and lassoed and out-of-control partisan Florida court. They were saying "you can't usurp the roles of the other two branches, you idiots."
This just proves what the original poster was saying. So, I don't get your point.
if the Chimp's cabinet appointees
are any indication, we could be in for a heap of trouble.
What! Oh no! Why?? Please tell me what "heap of trouble" I should expect. Tell me some scare stories. What are Bush's awful Cabinet picks going to do to me? Be specific.
Even those of us who slept through high-school government classes realize that we have witnessed an
unprecedented theft of a presidential election,
First of all, thanks for at least admitting that you slept through high-school government classes. That saves me the trouble of explaining why you are so ignorant.
Second, "theft" describes what Gore was trying to do, plain and simple. The attempted theft was stopped, but just barely.
Finally, it is naive and antihistorical to describe this election as "unprecedented". How about 1876? How about the election of John Quincy Adams and his "corrupt bargain"? Jefferson? Kennedy's alleged theft in 1960?
In truth, if you know even a modicum of history and don't subscribe to a self-centered world view, you will realize that there have been way more screwed-up Presidential elections. No, we are not at the center of the universe and 2000 is not the most important year in this country's history.
you should be ashamed of yourself for writing anything that could
even possibly be misconstrued as tolerant of what Rhenquist has done.
Assuming you mean Rehnquist, let me positively affirm that I definitely agree with his every action in this case. Tell me why you don't. Back up your opinion with the Constitution, please, and be specific.
Otherwise all you are doing here is whining because your guy lost.
Slashdot Mirror
What an odd choice of an example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "what goes around, comes around" presumably wouldn't be the main reason why you wouldn't sound off to your law or politics colleagues about your fascinating personal views regarding Katherine Harris's fashion sense.
The reason you wouldn't do that is because you would never want to embarrass yourself by advertising the fact that you judge a woman by how she dresses, and are so superficial as to conclude something about a woman's character from her level of sexual attractiveness. While your hypothetical colleagues would presumably be busying themselves studying the legal or political issues surrounding Ms. Harris and her job performance, becoming well-versed and erudite on the subject and legal precedents and political issues involved, just picture yourself chiming in with a silly comment like "And she dresses like such a scarecrow, huh!" What would your colleagues think about such a comment?
It has nothing to do with whether you'd be "informing" (saying all that you know) on Ms. Harris at all, because such a comment reveals more about you than it does about her. (You don't "know" that Ms. Harris dresses like a scarecrow, you simply think so.) So the reason you (presumably) wouldn't want to make that comment is much different from any reasons for not wanting to become an "informer" (which dilemma arises in cases where one has actual limited information to share, such as "he said he was gonna kill someone", which may or may not be out of context or incomplete. Your statement, "I think she dresses like a scarecrow", doesn't even qualify...).
In short, the reason you would never say such a thing around your legal or political office is because you wouldn't want to advertise the fact that you are an unprofessional superficial boob.
Right?
I can buy this statement as a description of things. It is worth pointing out, however, that you haven't quite defined what sort of issue qualifies as "important". And that may be the crux of the matter.
Perhaps an "important" issue is simply, One that the powers-that-be would really really like to cover up and therefore call upon all their resources to do so. (An example of a relatively non-"important" issue which, therefore?, was not successfully covered up might be: Lewinsky)
But then this all becomes circular again: the government only covers up "important" stuff successfully. What qualifies as "important"? Anything the government really really thinks is worth covering up! (And therefore successfully covers up.)
Which brings us back where we started, unfortunately. Oh well.
Read my post again. The original poster claimed, "the government simply aren't able to suppress political stories and reporting, at least not in any legal or visible way."
I simply rephrased this statement in the contrapositive: "when [emphasis now added] the government does suppress political stories and reporting, it does it in ways which are illegal and/or invisible."
Note especially the use of "when". I did not assert that the government does cover things up (i.e. I did not insist on the existence of a cat on my desk, as you seem to think); I merely pointed out that if (ok, I probably should have used "if" and not "when") the government were covering something up, it would (according to the original post) have certain properties, namely, be illegal and/or invisible. In keeping with your analogy, I was describing what the cat would be like if it were indeed on my desk, which it may or may not be. This all follows quite logically from the original poster's claim. The point of the exercise was to expose said claim for its empty content, and nothing more.
The poster in essence said "don't worry, if the government covers stuff up, they at least hide it well." Which is true and everything, but is simply not a valid reason to believe that the government never covers anything up and/or that the question is of no concern.
All that being said, your point about this getting slightly off topic is well taken.... ;) For the record, I have no doubt that state funding doesn't necessarily corrupt the editorial process, and conversely, "independence" (in an economic sense) is no guarantee of impartiality. In my opinion one can find incontrovertible proof of the latter statement, for example, among the major U.S. media outlets.
But that's a different thread altogether.
And because the post reminds you of people who want to ban Halloween?
You're not even addressing the actual substance of a post at all. At least if you simply resorted to personal ad hominem attacks, you comments would be related in a direct way to the post. How is someone supposed to respond when you say they remind you of Ayn Rand? "No, I don't"? There is no rational response, but then again that's just because you have not attempted rational discourse in the first place.
What should I, everyday American, do in response to the movie Chinatown? Enlighten me. Complete the sentence, "Because of the things X, Y, and Z which happened in the movie Chinatown, people should do A, B, and C immediately if not sooner."
I mean, what about Chinatown is supposed to be so representative of the US as a whole? People impregnating their own daughters (a huge national issue)? What?
Interesting statement. I take it this means that, when the government does suppress political stories and reporting, it does it in ways which are illegal and/or invisible.
(I mean, that's what you're saying, right? Essentially, you're saying "The government never covers anything up, because I never see any evidence of it!" Which...uh...kinda misses the point, right? :)
i'd bet that they're expending them on suppressing and controlling things far more worrying than what their funded media are producing.
I'll take that bet. I'll bet that you are wrong and that the government pays special attention to media output regarding its actions.
I don't know much about the UK, but here in the U.S. it has been reported that during the Yugoslavia, uh, bombing, the Army had special "advisors" over at CNN.
And you think it's a good idea to get the media even more in bed with the government? The mind boggles.
This is a common idea and I suppose I have no disagreement with it, per se.
My problem is with your proposed "solution" - to wit, put the government in charge of the movie business. Do you really want this?
No one will argue with your charge that the need to be "commercial" can produce very shlocky trashy output. (On the other hand, this is not the same thing as saying that all movies produced within a commercial system are bad, right?)
My problem is with the notion that movies (or any art) produced on the government's dime are necessarily any better. All right, movies in Hollywood serve one master (the almighty dollar, the mass lowest-common-denominator moviegoer). But art produced PBS-style serves another master (primarily, the bureaucrats who have to approve the grants; and, ultimately, the tastes of snobbish upper-middle-class cocktail-party-goers).
This just replaces one master with another. Why is the second one necessarily better? Is 4 Weddings and a Funeral really better than Fight Club? Is Shallow Grave really better than The Sixth Sense?
In fact, let's just expose this "let's have the government fund art so it's not subject to market forces" mantra for what it really is. It is upper-middle-class snobs petitioning the government to take money away from the working class to fund their tastes.
It is essentially a transfer payment from the lower classes to the rich (who, after all, could just fund PBS-type ventures on their own if they really think such things are so important).
The charge that Bush is "allowing polluters to regulate themselves" is so vague and ambiguous and disconnected from reality that it is not necessary for me to "defend" it. All I need to do is point to that sentence and say "you need to elaborate a little before I can be convinced that you are sincere here".
What precisely do you mean by saying he is "allowing polluters to regulate themselves"?
Let me try to think through what you could possibly mean by this. Let's see. Regulations, technically, should only come from acts of Congress (since they are laws). Can you be saying that President Bush has disbanded Congress, put Polluters in the place of Congress, and let Polluters write laws instead, from now on? But no - that's just silly.
Of course another source of Regulations is from federal agencies (in this case, the EPA). For some reason a federal agency is allowed to write something called a Regulation, publish it in the Federal Register, wait for "comments", and Presto! it becomes a law.
Now, personally, I find this practice abominable in a supposedly free and "democratic" society. Laws are supposed to come from a Congress whose members are representatives of the people - not from unelected bureaucrats in the EPA.
But regardless, that's the way it works nowadays, and therefore when you speak of Regulations against Polluters, you are probably talking about the regulations which come from the EPA. So, what can you be saying? Can you be saying that Bush has fired everyone in the EPA and replaced them with Polluters?
Is that what you are saying? But no - that's just silly. You don't honestly believe that, do you?
So what are you saying?
One more possibility I can think of. One method of "regulating" something is to punish people by fining them. For example, if you are driving your car and you exceed the speed limit, you are violating a regulation (the speed limit) and you can be ticketed and fined. In one sense, you are punished for violating the Regulation. In another sense, the government is letting you regulate yourself, because if you want to, you can pay the fine and violate the regulation. You see, the Regulation against excessive speed does not prevent you from speeding in any absolute sense, it simply discourages you from speeding.
This is probably the kind of thing you have in mind when you accuse President Bush of "allowing polluters to regulate themselves". (Correct me if I'm wrong.) There is a system in place, involving "pollution credits" and quotas and (yes) fines, and, as I understand things, it is the method of pollution reduction which Bush advocated in Texas and (conceivably) could advocate as President.
You know something? I don't have a problem with that.
Do you? If so, explain why your method of pollution reduction is obviously superior. And explain why anyone who disagrees with you is necessarily a "scumbag". Thanks.
Demonstrably untrue. I, for one, do not think he is a scumbag.
Maybe you're missing it, but he's proving everyone right.
How has he proven himself to be a scumbag? Be specific. And I assume you realize that simply doing things in government which you disagree with because of your ideology does not make someone a "scumbag".
I am a Republican, and this is not true of myself. The only reason I turned against clinton is that he committed crimes and abused the power of his office. I understand, however, that Democrats think that this is not possible - that no Democrat can ever commit a crime or be corrupt and therefore any opposition to a Democrat can not be honest and principled. You have your biases, and I understand them. That doesn't make your statements accurate.
What goes around comes around, or so they say.
As is common you make no actual attempt to defend the bias. Instead you appeal to this idea that "your side does it too", which, even if it were true, would not make it right.
Yeah, we could have a racist mysogynistic theocrat like John Ashcroft enforcing our laws. Oh, wait.
Explain exactly why you think John Ashcroft is a "racist mysogynistic theocrat", and give details. You don't want to come off sounding like you are good for nothing but echoing demagogic talking points spewed forth by the Democrats you see on TV, now, do you?
For example, the charge of "racist" usually comes from Ashcroft's opposition to the nomination of a man named Ronnie White (who happens to be black) to the federal bench.
Explain why you think Ronnie White should have been made a federal judge, specifically addressing that one case of the murdered sherriff's deputies and wife. Also explain why you think any opposition to White's judgeship was intellectually dishonest and necessarily based on racism.
Thanks! I'll be waiting.
For example, during the post-election mess we heard lots about "overvotes". An "overvote", of course, being a special kind of non-vote.
Similarly, there were the ballots with no holes punched but which had "dimpled chads". Once again, this is merely a particular type of non-vote.
So when you brag about some newspaper article that talks about "lost votes", I just want to clarify: are you talking about non-votes, as in those other two examples? Thanks.
That is not an actual question. What about him, specifically?
Billions of dollars of "Faith" based money?
Another non-question. Those "billions of dollars" are normally simply called "welfare money", and what's your problem with the government handing it out to institutions which are proven to produce results? Would you rather the money be given to incompetent organizations who would waste it?
So let me get this straight. You don't like the law, you don't like the fact that Congress passed it, you wish the law didn't exist....but you refuse to blame bill clinton for signing the law (when a veto would have held up, because the R's did not have a veto-proof majority). Why?
Because "the puritanical hypocrite-Republicans would have been crying that the President was immoral anyways."
In other words, you would rather see a law which you abhor pass than see your beloved worshipped El Presidente criticized. How twisted is that?
This law was created by Rebuplicans, not Democrats. Just look at it. Do you know what conservative means?
There is no arguing the fact that it was passed by Republicans, since they were the majority and so it would not have passed otherwise.
However, it is not clear that you know what "conservative" means. Perhaps you would like to share with the rest of the class. For example, I know what conservative means (I am one), and I don't see what being conservative is supposed to have to do with supporting the "Children's Internet Protection Act" in your mind.
[My question...] Who are you going to complain to now? It's Bush and a split Congress? I suppose you can say its all Bill Clinton's fault...for the next 20 years. Do you really think that Bush has that much more integrity? Oh. That's right, he has heart. And he's willing to sell it to the highest bidder.
Um, good "question". (Actually by my count that's about 3 questions, but whatever.) I'll take them one at a time:
Who are you going to complain to now? I don't understand the question. Who do you think I was complaining to before, and why do you think this will change? If I have any complaining to do I expect I will complain to the same people I always have; does that answer your question?
It's Bush and a split Congress? Hmmm, upon closer inspection this isn't even a question.
I suppose you can say its all Bill Clinton's fault...for the next 20 years. You suppose I can say what's all bill clinton's fault? What are you talking about? The things which are bill clinton's fault (like technology transfers to China), I will say they are bill clinton's fault, and blame him for any repercussions which may arise. The things which aren't (Baltimore winning the Super Bowl), I won't. Fair enough?
Do you really think that Bush has that much more integrity? Yes, I do. I think Bush has more integrity in his little pinky than bill clinton has displayed in his entire life. (And this doesn't even mean I think Bush has a whole lot of integrity in general; it's just that clinton set the bar so low.)
Further, if you don't see this about clinton then this can only mean you are ignorant of his crimes and corruption. Which is fine with me, of course (you have the right to remain ignorant), but doesn't mean you should be taken very seriously when you sound off about the subject like this.
Oh. That's right, he has heart. And he's willing to sell it to the highest bidder. Explain, please. Who did GWBush sell his heart to? Just what the heck are you talking about? Do you even know, or do you just enjoy wallowing in your ignorance so much that you prefer making vague unsubstantiated charges to backing your assertions up with facts?
Who said Bill Clinton was anyone's leader? Everyone knows the leader of the US is Alan Greenspan. You are wrong on both accounts. (Who is the one who doesn't remember his High School Government lessons here?)
Neither one is (or was) our "leader". Alan Greenspan is the Fed Chairman (a position not even mentioned in the Constitution), while bill clinton was nothing more than the President (the head of the executive branch of the federal government (which has 3 branches), and commander-in-chief of the armed forces). But "leader"? No, sorry. You must be thinking of some other country.
An analogy exists when it comes to physical fitness. There is no societal or other essential purpose which makes it necessary for a man to lie down on a bench and push a heavy object above him with his arms. Yet thousands do it every day; it's called "working out" and (in moderation of course) it is (correctly) viewed as a healthy, beneficial activity. The analogy of your argument in this respect would be a little like you saying to a man who stays in shape by working out, "You don't need to do these things for your subsistence, so why do them?" Just stay at home and veg on the sofa watching videos of people working out, I guess?
The fact is that doing arithmetic, in and of itself, is a beneficial activity and is a necessary component of any education which is going to contain a mathematical component. It trains the human brain to recognize patterns in numbers. This is a necessary step if one wants to go on to become educated in any scientifically-related subject, just as calisthenics and stretching are necessary if one is going to participate in a football game.
The existence (and likely continued existence) of calculators and spell-checkers do not change this fact.
Why is "access to computers" supposed to be so important to kids that we are supposed to drop whatever else we are doing (including, apparently, teaching them reading, writing and arithmetic) and make sure every kid is able to play Quake?
Have you ever questioned this assumption of yours, Mr. Katz?
The ingredients for having a healthy skepticism are right there in the "study" you cite. In addition, your loaded use of language and terminology (in trying to "prove" how "important" an issue this is) actually deserve a deeper analysis than perhaps you are willing. For example:
Wealthier kids have access to research, free music, challenging games, educational and social opportunities online and the better jobs of the new economy.
Translation: a kid with a computer can (a) crib a paper from somewhere on the web to hand in tomorrow, then (b) (c) (d) waste the rest of his free time using Napster, playing Quake, and hanging around chatrooms. Why is this supposed to be a good thing, Mr. Katz?
An amazing seventy per cent of American households with children ages 2 to 17 have Net access, says the report....
If that number is so "amazing" then just what are you complaining about, Mr. Katz?
Access to computing -- to RPG and other forms of gaming, search engines, IM, file-sharing systems -- shapes creativity, vocabuliary, political awareness, culture and common language, not to mention economic opportunity.
Now this is just a load of semi-mystical and starry-eyed bunk. Playing Diablo 2 "shapes creativity"? Typing "Britney Spears naked" into Google helps one's "vocabuliary" [sic]? What is "file-sharing systems" supposed to mean - messing around with freenet?
Do you really believe this stuff Katz? Do you really believe that (a) it's crucial to their development for adolescents to do these things, and (b) it's some kind of civil rights travesty that poor kids don't?
From the study:
For young boys, games are the dominant form of computer use.
Aha! Here it is, Mr. Katz. The silver bullet that shoots your entire thesis right through the heart. Why don't you see that?
I'll go through it slowly for you: If GAMES are the dominant form of computer use, then what the hell is so crucial about computers to a kid's education? Can you tell me with a straight face?
There are concerns among educators and psychologists about the 7 to 9 percent of American children who play computer games for more than 30 hours a week.
Yet you want to increase that percentage by making sure that poor kids get themselves hooked on Everquest too!
Not surprisingly, the more technology is available in the home, the more time kids spend in front of screens.
So why don't you ever carry these (completely unsurprising) "findings" of this study to their logical conclusion? More computers = more time spent in front of computers, much of it wasted. (No matter what you may insist, game playing and instant messaging and web searching do not contribute to a child's education, unless you have a very warped concept of education!)
"Efforts to ensure equal access to computer-related learning opportunities at school must move beyond a concern with the number of computers in different schools toward an emphasis on how well those computers are being used to help children develop intellectual competencies and technical skills," said the Packard Foundation study.
This is actually a fairly sober and supportable quote. Why do you take the trouble to include this quote in your article when you seem to completely miss its point? The authors of this study are specifically saying how computers are used is more important than "closing the digital divide". Yet your entire article seems to be about how important it is to "close the digital divide"!
Bush says he wants education to be a major priority in his administration, but his proposals, which were outlined this week, focus on literacy testing and accountability -- they don't even mention technology or computing.
That is a good thing, Mr. Katz, and I am pleasantly surprised to see that this administration is taking this approach. Your unwritten assumption all along seems to be "education = computers". Screw reading, screw math, screw history. Do you understand how perverted this is?
. Few people in the new or old administration -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- seems to get that the most powerful moral issue affecting many kids and the Net isn't that they are online too much, but that so many aren't online at all, or find their Net and Web lives bounded by disparities in family income.
This is a very bold assertion on your part. I happen to disagree with practically every single word of it, but I have to admit that it is an interesting statement. The problem is, you don't back it up. What you should do is write an article explaining, in clear terms, why you believe this. Why is the "most powerful moral issue" affecting kids the fact that they aren't spending enough time on the Net? To me this seems perverse, so I admit it is a provocative statement. One that deserves more justification that you give it here. Is it just the fact that you assume, because this is Slashdot, that everyone here agrees with you? (I am pleasantly surprised to see, by some of the comments, that this is not true, by the way.)
their Net and Web lives bounded by disparities in family income.
Or maybe this is the crux of the matter.
Jonathan Katz has discovered the astounding and shocking fact of the real world - that rich people get more stuff!
Horror! Now that I think about it, you're right Mr. Katz. Rich people do have more computers! (And more cars. Better houses. Better food. Better furniture. Shall I go on?) Is all this misty-eyed rhetoric and unsupported assertions nothing more than a thinly-disguised, old-fashioned class-warfare screed?
The "digital divide" is bad (why?) because poor people have less computers than rich people, and that's bad. We simply must do something about the fact that rich people are richer than poor people!
Do you believe your own B.S. Mr. Katz?
Give me a break.
By the way, your facts aren't even correct. When the election was on hold (because of some Gore protest), the market went down. Whenever it looked like things might move forward (Bush winning this or that legal victory), it would spike up. I witnessed this phenomenon with my own eyes as I watched one of the myriad court announcements go in favor of Bush and, at the bottom of the screen, watched NASDAQ climb 100 points or so within a minute of the announcement.
So, don't give me this crap about Bush causing a recession before he's even in there. It's bunk and you know it.
Then again, you're probably one of those people who try to give clinton the credit for the recovery that began a year and a half before he got into office, too. So maybe you don't know how much bunk you're spewing, who knows....
It is unclear which point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that the election mess was evidence that the separation of powers are not always respected?
If so, I agree. The election mess was caused by an out-of-control Florida Supreme Court. First they illegally and unconstitutionally extended the deadline for numbers to be reported. Then they illegally and unconstitutionally decided to order yet another recount (of so-called "undervotes", which are actually more accurately described as Non-Votes.)
Both times they overstepped their bounds, usurping the role of the Legislative branch (the Constitution gives full authority to the state legislature when it comes to selecting electors) and the Executive branch (it was the Secretary of State's sworn duty to enforce the law, and the Florida Supreme Court prevented her from doing it.)
And yes, both times they were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court because their actions were inexcusable and, frankly, downright insane.
The U.S. Supreme Court, then, simply upheld the separation of powers when they stepped in and lassoed and out-of-control partisan Florida court. They were saying "you can't usurp the roles of the other two branches, you idiots."
This just proves what the original poster was saying. So, I don't get your point.
if the Chimp's cabinet appointees are any indication, we could be in for a heap of trouble.
What! Oh no! Why?? Please tell me what "heap of trouble" I should expect. Tell me some scare stories. What are Bush's awful Cabinet picks going to do to me? Be specific.
Even those of us who slept through high-school government classes realize that we have witnessed an unprecedented theft of a presidential election,
First of all, thanks for at least admitting that you slept through high-school government classes. That saves me the trouble of explaining why you are so ignorant.
Second, "theft" describes what Gore was trying to do, plain and simple. The attempted theft was stopped, but just barely.
Finally, it is naive and antihistorical to describe this election as "unprecedented". How about 1876? How about the election of John Quincy Adams and his "corrupt bargain"? Jefferson? Kennedy's alleged theft in 1960?
In truth, if you know even a modicum of history and don't subscribe to a self-centered world view, you will realize that there have been way more screwed-up Presidential elections. No, we are not at the center of the universe and 2000 is not the most important year in this country's history.
you should be ashamed of yourself for writing anything that could even possibly be misconstrued as tolerant of what Rhenquist has done.
Assuming you mean Rehnquist, let me positively affirm that I definitely agree with his every action in this case. Tell me why you don't. Back up your opinion with the Constitution, please, and be specific.
Otherwise all you are doing here is whining because your guy lost.
To which I say: Get over it.