I never said they didn't smoke the corporate pole (lovely analogy,that). I said they smoke the corporate pole in the absence of any real accountability created by an engaged electorate. ClearChannel is an abomination that wouldn't exist if the public was actively engaged in protecting their trust.
And BTW, the FCC fined media corporations, didn't they?
I don't vote every four years. I vote in every election, which can amount to multiple times per year, because I recognize that participatory government works from the ground up.
And, if you'd like to critique my grammar, you can read copies of many of my letters in my journal.
Of course they do. I am also convinced that American voters by and large are knee-jerk single issue numbskulls that don't deserve to make decisions for the country.
HOWEVER, those who vote define the policy. That's how the system works, and backing out of the process just empowers the numbskulls more. Every dissident non-voter is as complicit in our current choice of government as those who voted out of fear for a society in which they're protected from the horrors of "gay marriage" and "partial-birth abortion", not realizing what they are really signing over.
Where does the FCC's "ideology" come from? It certainly didn't come from the TV networks (i.e. the corporations) in the case you just cited.
It wasn't corporations that raised the cry over Janet's boob shot, it was offended citizens. I don't agree with their position (nor many other things they've managed to push into policy of late) but they are a perfect example of how citizens make more difference than corporations.
Keep telling yourself that. While you're at it, stop voting. RIAA, MPAA, TV, and Walmart love you.
The FCC *will* change its tune if the public outcry is great enough. In the absence of public outrage driving their Congressional bosses, there is no reason for them to. Look only to the recent bruhaha over the Hubble Space Telescope to see how a government agency can be forced to reevaluate its position at the behest of an outspoken electorate, and a whole lot more people watch TV than give a damn about HST.
The democracy only fails to be representative when the constituency fails to participate. If the public is more engaged, then people who only want corporate retainers will become consultants and CEOs and stay the hell out of public office.
How pendantic do I have to be? Corporate money may finance campaigns, but CORPORATIONS DON'T VOTE!
Why are these machines being made by third parties?
As opposed to the government? Thats your choice. Government made. Or privately made. Choose your gun. I'll take a publically traded company in an industry of 5-10 competitors over the government any day.
I'd agree with you except for one niggling detail.
Lack of a clear standard for voting technology is the path to equal protection violations. Having thousands of counties choosing their machinery in a competitive market environment virtually ensures that someone somewhere is getting a more reliable vote than someone else elsewhere. This is true whether its coexistence of manual and electronic systems or the various flavors of electronic systems. There is even an element of determinism here, as you can basically be sure that the poorer a district is, the more likely it is to have inferior equipment.
We need a clear and national standard for voting machine technology, and unless a system provably adheres to that standard in an objective review, it should not be allowed in the market.
Ultimately, I think open source code should be mandated (the idea that methods for counting votes could be considered a trade secret is insane) but I'm willing to concede that is unlikely to happen in our current legal/business culture. In the absence of open peer/public review, though, a standard set of interfaces that can be objectively tested would have to suffice.
Sorry. I did get your point, and I agree with it*. I'm just still stinging a little from the overt hostility of the local Republican activists, and that claim about their civility just set me off.
* = An interesting counterpoint is that the Dems might also have done better if they'd leaned harder to the left and energized an electorate tired of bland centrist politics.
Obviously there are exception, but by in large the Republicans managed to stay civil, while the Democrats had a legion of people running across the nation arguing that Bush was the second coming if Hitler.
Out of curiosity, where exactly do you live? I live in a majority Democrat region and the "by and large" here was things like GWB supporters ripping Kerry signs out of the ground (on private property) and replacing them with their own and signs in Jewish neighborhoods claiming Yasser Arafat's endorsement for Kerry.
The idea that the GOP was civil is frankly laughable. This was the most vitriolic, fear-mongering campaign on both sides that I have seen in my life.
What about abortion and gay marriage? Didn't the candidates have different positions there?
Only if you listen to their positions as represented by their opponents. As stated by the candidates themselves, their positions were effectively identical.
The worst part is that now, Democrat leadership does not stand for anything other than "we hate Republicans and Christians".
Half right, maybe, but did you happen to notice that John Kerry *is* a Christian? I'm fed up with people promulgating this notion that the DP is anti-Christian. It's prima facie absurd. The DP is against the institutionalization of fundamentalist religous principles of any stripe in government, something a libertarian (small "l"?) should certainly understand.
If you meant to say meddling, self-righteous fringe protestant busybody zealots, then maybe there's something to your claim. How would these self-righteous Christians react if it were fundamentalist Islam that was jockeying for influence in our Federal system?
Thanks for bringing that up. It occured to me, but I forgot to put it in my post. I was sitting chuckling at the notion of "No Nukes" protests in the old USSR.
The idea that the left has a consistent point of view on much of anything across all its members is ludicrous. My point is that yammering in such generalizations about either "wing" is counterproductive to any real analysis of issues.
I'm going to ignore the provocative tone of your reply and attempt to answer your question on its merits.
Most people seem come to the conclusion that religion is all about "faith" because they base their understanding of religion on some derivative of Christianity. It is not up to me to educate you on comparative religion, but you shouldn't have to dig very deeply into the topic to learn that the overwhelming importance of faith in Christianity is the exception rather than the rule.
So in effect, I will name not one but many: basically any religion that isn't Christianity.
I understood and appreciated your point. I just wanted to point out that not all religions treat faith as equally important or even as necessary to their practice.
And yes, as rephrased I find your statement much more palatable.:-)
religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition, unprovable belief
Religion is too inclusive a term to be so trivialized. Maybe the only religion you've ever encountered "rests on a premise of faith" but that is not a generalizable characteristic of religion.
... to the AC. I read the post again and realized it was a crack on The Shawshank Redemption, not a commentary on TR's views. The election season's really getting to me...
... has been circulating for years and was likely piss at one time or another anyway, who cares what the filtration system is (ZeeWeed or natural aquifer) so long as one verifies the output is clean water.
I think it was Tom Robbins who postulated that life was invented by water as a means of transporting itself from one place to another?
Slashdot Mirror
I never said they didn't smoke the corporate pole (lovely analogy ,that). I said they smoke the corporate pole in the absence of any real accountability created by an engaged electorate.
ClearChannel is an abomination that wouldn't exist if the public was actively engaged in protecting their trust.
And BTW, the FCC fined media corporations, didn't they?
I don't vote every four years. I vote in every election, which can amount to multiple times per year, because I recognize that participatory government works from the ground up.
And, if you'd like to critique my grammar, you can read copies of many of my letters in my journal.
Of course they do. I am also convinced that American voters by and large are knee-jerk single issue numbskulls that don't deserve to make decisions for the country.
HOWEVER, those who vote define the policy. That's how the system works, and backing out of the process just empowers the numbskulls more. Every dissident non-voter is as complicit in our current choice of government as those who voted out of fear for a society in which they're protected from the horrors of "gay marriage" and "partial-birth abortion", not realizing what they are really signing over.
You've just torpedoed your own argument.
Where does the FCC's "ideology" come from? It certainly didn't come from the TV networks (i.e. the corporations) in the case you just cited.
It wasn't corporations that raised the cry over Janet's boob shot, it was offended citizens. I don't agree with their position (nor many other things they've managed to push into policy of late) but they are a perfect example of how citizens make more difference than corporations.
Keep telling yourself that. While you're at it, stop voting. RIAA, MPAA, TV, and Walmart love you.
The FCC *will* change its tune if the public outcry is great enough. In the absence of public outrage driving their Congressional bosses, there is no reason for them to. Look only to the recent bruhaha over the Hubble Space Telescope to see how a government agency can be forced to reevaluate its position at the behest of an outspoken electorate, and a whole lot more people watch TV than give a damn about HST.
The democracy only fails to be representative when the constituency fails to participate. If the public is more engaged, then people who only want corporate retainers will become consultants and CEOs and stay the hell out of public office.
How pendantic do I have to be? Corporate money may finance campaigns, but CORPORATIONS DON'T VOTE!
OK. If that's your bent, then stop posting here and go yell outside their window or write a $1000 check.
Stop posting here and WRITE to your congressional representatives.
Congress defines the mandate of the FCC, and without your input, all they hear is the clatter of change from the entertainment lobby.
I'd agree with you except for one niggling detail.
Lack of a clear standard for voting technology is the path to equal protection violations. Having thousands of counties choosing their machinery in a competitive market environment virtually ensures that someone somewhere is getting a more reliable vote than someone else elsewhere. This is true whether its coexistence of manual and electronic systems or the various flavors of electronic systems. There is even an element of determinism here, as you can basically be sure that the poorer a district is, the more likely it is to have inferior equipment.
We need a clear and national standard for voting machine technology, and unless a system provably adheres to that standard in an objective review, it should not be allowed in the market.
Ultimately, I think open source code should be mandated (the idea that methods for counting votes could be considered a trade secret is insane) but I'm willing to concede that is unlikely to happen in our current legal/business culture. In the absence of open peer/public review, though, a standard set of interfaces that can be objectively tested would have to suffice.
Sorry. I did get your point, and I agree with it*. I'm just still stinging a little from the overt hostility of the local Republican activists, and that claim about their civility just set me off.
* = An interesting counterpoint is that the Dems might also have done better if they'd leaned harder to the left and energized an electorate tired of bland centrist politics.
Out of curiosity, where exactly do you live? I live in a majority Democrat region and the "by and large" here was things like GWB supporters ripping Kerry signs out of the ground (on private property) and replacing them with their own and signs in Jewish neighborhoods claiming Yasser Arafat's endorsement for Kerry.
The idea that the GOP was civil is frankly laughable. This was the most vitriolic, fear-mongering campaign on both sides that I have seen in my life.
Only if you listen to their positions as represented by their opponents. As stated by the candidates themselves, their positions were effectively identical.
Half right, maybe, but did you happen to notice that John Kerry *is* a Christian? I'm fed up with people promulgating this notion that the DP is anti-Christian. It's prima facie absurd. The DP is against the institutionalization of fundamentalist religous principles of any stripe in government, something a libertarian (small "l"?) should certainly understand.
If you meant to say meddling, self-righteous fringe protestant busybody zealots, then maybe there's something to your claim. How would these self-righteous Christians react if it were fundamentalist Islam that was jockeying for influence in our Federal system?
Thanks for bringing that up. It occured to me, but I forgot to put it in my post. I was sitting chuckling at the notion of "No Nukes" protests in the old USSR.
The idea that the left has a consistent point of view on much of anything across all its members is ludicrous. My point is that yammering in such generalizations about either "wing" is counterproductive to any real analysis of issues.
I can tell you that I do not oppose nuclear energy, nor do a number of my "leftist" friends.
Try to keep the generalized character assasination out of the posts and preserve them for the flames and trolls in the comments section.
When I went to the site, there was a PS2 advert in the article!
Since Bush has only won one election, does that mean he gets to run again in 2008?
It's a joke, party tools, spare me your flames...
I'm going to ignore the provocative tone of your reply and attempt to answer your question on its merits.
Most people seem come to the conclusion that religion is all about "faith" because they base their understanding of religion on some derivative of Christianity. It is not up to me to educate you on comparative religion, but you shouldn't have to dig very deeply into the topic to learn that the overwhelming importance of faith in Christianity is the exception rather than the rule.
So in effect, I will name not one but many: basically any religion that isn't Christianity.
I understood and appreciated your point. I just wanted to point out that not all religions treat faith as equally important or even as necessary to their practice.
:-)
And yes, as rephrased I find your statement much more palatable.
Semantics, maybe, but one does not stop being a child of one's parents because one has passed a certain age...
Religion is too inclusive a term to be so trivialized. Maybe the only religion you've ever encountered "rests on a premise of faith" but that is not a generalizable characteristic of religion.
You're new to this business aren't you?
... to the AC. I read the post again and realized it was a crack on The Shawshank Redemption, not a commentary on TR's views. The election season's really getting to me...
*Tom* Robbins and there's no connection.
Nice political troll, though, twit...
... has been circulating for years and was likely piss at one time or another anyway, who cares what the filtration system is (ZeeWeed or natural aquifer) so long as one verifies the output is clean water.
I think it was Tom Robbins who postulated that life was invented by water as a means of transporting itself from one place to another?