While I agree it's more liberal than not (understatement), that's not the real issue. Instead, it's the Howard Stern Postulate: You have to have people who read (listen to) you because they hate you, too.
And people who disagree aren't going to pay $1, let alone $20.
There has been no finding whatsoever regarding the truth behind Nike's press releases. In fact, the truth has nothing to do with this at all.
The question posed to the CA Court was simple: Are "misleading" releases from a copororation actionably in the same sense that false advertising is?
Somehow, the Court came to a "yes" decision. This is one of the worst decisions in recent history: 1) False advertising is already disallowed. So, no, Nike can't say that "We pay all our workers more than $1/hr" if it isn't true, nor could they before the decision. Similarly, even before this decision, Phillip Morris couldn't legally claim that cigarrettes would make you bulletproof. 2) Lying about your oppontents is libel and/or slander, and is actionable. It has been for a long, long time. But this ruling expands actionably causes to truths that are, according to some judge or jury, vaguely and subjectively "misleading." Even if it the truth. 3) The anti-sweatshop individuals can exaggerate and mislead all they want. And they still can.
So, yes, you are misreading it. And I think most of Slashdot is.
We're amazed that a bunch of kids in India can use the web, but have no trouble believing that a survivor of war-torn Afghanistan can (a) get a Commodore on the 'net and (b) emails Jon Katz when he does.
The Sim packages would be good for political insight -- if you believe that dictorial decisions make for the best political system. Could you imagine a mayor who unilaterally bulldozes industrial zones for a park? Or if the city would brown-out if the Mayor didn't like nuclear power? Or if, like me, you wanted a stadium near your house?
But the fact of the matter is that the Bea Arthur, Jefferson Airplane Starship Starship, and Diahann Carroll appearances don't help it. It still sucks. Apparently it has since it came out -- which is why it's so hard to find.
If N'Sync wants to have something to do with Star Wars, then they can -- it's called a music video. Yeah, like Cyndi Lauper's that rode the Goonies coattails. Lucas/N'Sync can sell each video for $10 to the teenyboppers. But come on -- if you need to put N'Sync in the movie itself....
Today, Mr. Katz starts with "An open information society is inevitable." But in the past, he often chose to rail on the ad hominemly named "Big Media" for, well, trying to silence other opinions. You've seen this drivel -- Katz claiming that CNNSIAOLTIMEWARNERLOONEYTOONS will take over the world, imposing de facto restrictions on certain opinions, etc.
Don't blame Sony, MS, Nintendo, the MPAA, theaters, or record companies for the rating system being de facto ratings. It's not their fault.
The ratings are mostly harmless, at least to ideals such as free speech and free expression. It costs nearly nothing to put the ESRB rating on a game. But the benefits it extolls are enormous. Parents -- well, some of them, at least -- like the ratings. Those who don't could care less about the black-on-white tilted "E." But really, which kind of parent is going to scream if the label isn't there? From this view, it's a good PR move for the companies to have such labeling. For those who believe that companies should take the high road and refuse to crumbled under the public's (and, more importantly, their customer's) desires, PLEASE, do not go into business for yourself.
Second: Labeling shifts the burdern of suitability monitering from the parents to, well, no one.
* Movie theaters can refuse to allow teens into R-rated movies. Parents no longer have to pre-screen movies (either by viewing or reading reviews). Movie producers do not have to worry about the suitability of their content -- hey, it's labeled! Theaters are also usually under no legal obligation to deny access to R and PG-13 films.
* Since the TV ratings came to be, sexual content has skyrocketed. Why? Because TV producers push the envelope -- now that it is labeled (see above), parents cannot complain. No surprises equals no complaints.
* Remember how everyone shut up about the vulgarity of Two Live Crew after the "Warning: Explicit Lyrics" tag came to be? And remember how bands wore it as a badge of honor?
The exception to this is video/computer games. Quite simply, the ESRB rating came soon after the advent of console gaming -- within a few years. Well, at least within a few years of graphics good enough to be considered vulgar. They were a response more to other labeling -- not so much do to objectionable video game content.
This goes to show that the market demand for labeling exists -in and of itself-. The industries in question do not require them for the sake of limiting speech. They require them because it makes for a better -- that is, more sellable -- product. And they are right.
Being born in 1977, I only saw Jedi in theaters, and am too young to have seen the New Hope and Empire trailers.
As luck (and eBay) would have it, I purchased a copy of the Star Wars Holiday Special (it is -hideous-). Appended to the end were a lot of trailers... and the EpII trailer (Vaderbreath) is a lot like one of the Empire ones.
Empire is my favorite one of them all, so, keep hope alive.
But if they can make money with ads -- and, if this increases revenues -- great. With ad revenue included, they may already have "enough" subscribers -- and therefore should stay in business.
Why is it, that when Apple donates $1m and probably another $1m in computers,/. cheers, but when MS gives away $5m and another $5m in software, they boo?
Expect them to be gone forever, if they involve violence _and_ the WTC.
The second to last Seinfeld episode, it is rumored, to not be available for syndication. During the episode, Kramer (I think) accidentally burns a Puerto Rican flag during the Puerto Rican Day parade in NYC, to the dismay (if not horror) of many viewers.
During the same episode, Elaine, during some rant, complains that she "went to Tufts [University]" and that it was her "safety." At the time it first aired, I was at Tufts (as a student), watching the episode with about 100 others in an on-campus eatery. Suffice it to say that I would love to see that episode again, and, given a few minutes notice, would tape it.
But the sensitivities of others have seemingly denied me that opportunity. A local station here claims to be airing "every" episode, from the beginning, starting either this week or next. Will they show the PRDP episode? We'll see.
The WTC attack is extremely more difficult for a much larger audience. If a show that pulled no punches could be offed by a six minute segment, don't be surprised if network executives choose, for the "greater good," to throw sightings of the WTC down the Orwellian Memory Hole.
I'm not trying to be defensively obnoxious here (heck, I'm not defending anything!), but I don't really understand why the Congressman is interested in "why" of open source. Part of this stems from my take on American politics; that is, there should be no fixed constellation of political orthodoxy, but mainly, I'd like to know of what concern it is to Boucher.
If it comes up, could you ask him why he wants to know? I'm more curious than anything else, but it seems that "why" really shouldn't matter, just "that" people do, indeed, code to give the code away.
Write a check to an International AIDS foundation. It's much more effective than claiming that Brazil is not only in the right, but that what they are doing is good.
What truly ills stomachs is when a short-sighted "solution" -- in this case, theft -- is justified for saving lives. But it does not save lives; it merely trades some lives for many others. If Brazil were to have an epidemic that American companies were already researching a cure for (let's say, West Nile virus or something), would American companies sink an extra dime into R&D? Not anymore. And you cannot violate that drug's patent, for the drug does not exist.
But, if all the "SAVE REAL HUMAN LIVES" > "SO IT CAN MAKE MONEY" people out there decided that, instead of pricing people out of live-saving drungs, donated some cash or time to AIDS organizations, both conditions would be met: Lives would be saved and R&D would continue.
No, we can't do everything; as it is, my status on the unemployed line means I only have time to volunteer. But to claim that some pharmacist with three kids and a dog or a lab technician with two elderly parents are less important than an AIDS patient in Brazil is a claim none of us can make.
If you want to make a difference, stop complaining. Stop spending other people's money. Stop making decisions for others. Do what you can within your means, and the world we be a better place. But go beyond that, and you are no longer doing good.
Kohan -- which/. pimped last week -- is a fantastic RTS game, and I'm told that one only needs 1 CD for a LAN game. (It may be 1 CD for 2 or 3 people, not sure. Check the message boards at the above link.)
WC2 was a fun RTS, but it was truly a clickfest. Kohan (and for that matter, Total Annihilation) were both much more robust games. But neither really became SimBase games; either would make an excellent LAN party game.
Two weeks ago, some of my friends went to see Legally Blonde. "Matinee," I thought, referring to the price I'd like to play -- about $4 -- to see a movie that proudly portrays its vapitidy. I, and other friends, went to see The Score instead. I may see Legally Blonde this afternoon, but it's looking increasingly unlikely. $8.50 (the regular price of a movie) saved; $4.50 if I end up seeing it during the day.
Mr. Katz ended up not only saving the money, but seeing the movie.
Last Wednesday, my friends wanted to see JP3. I, having not particularly liked the first and downright hated the second, said no thanks, have fun, and smell ya later. Another $8.50 saved.
Mr. Katz ended up seeing enough of the movie to walk out on it (apparently, my foresight is 20/20, if his opinion is to be trusted), and did so without paying for it.
I'll likely see America's Sweethearts soon. That's $8.50 I'll spend.
Mr. Katz also paid full price to see America's Sweethearts (we'll assume the ticket printed "Jurassic Park 3" was simply clerk error), but is actually paid -- by a corporation, nonetheless -- to do so.
So, here we have me, Average Joe Moviegoer, unable to see every movie that comes out due to budgetary prioritizing. On the other hand, Corporate Moviegoer Jon goes to not one, not two, but THREE movies for the price of one, recognizes the illegality (but not immorality) of his actions, and then gets PAID to do it.
As movie theaters' profits are based on economies of scale -- that is, each moviegoer gives them increasingly more income, per person -- Corporate Jon has in effect stolen doubly from the theaters. I say we blame the evil entity known as Big MovieReviewing. After all, corporations have no moral compass, and Mr. Katz is a shining example.
Times have changed,
ISPs are getting worse,
They won't obey their contract,
They just want to fart and curse!
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should we blame the images on TV?
No!
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
With all their beady little eyes,
And flappin' heads so full of lies,
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
We need to form a full assault!
It's Canada's fault!
Don't blame me for AOL,
They saw the contract loophole,
And now their off to bloody Hell!
And of course Bill Gates,
One had Solaris on his shelf,
But now, when I see him,
He tells me to fsck myself!
Well,
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
It seems everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along.
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
They're not even a real country, anyway.
My ISP could have lasted me until 2094,
Instead it's on the heap like the Adam and Commodore.
Should we blame Jon Katz?
Should we blame Wired?
Or the marketers who allowed it be retired?
Heck, no!
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
With all their hockey hullabaloo,
And that bitch Anne Murray, too,
Blame Canada!
This column would get moderated down as a toothless, ad hominem attack -- it claims to tarnish an entity (in this case, by making the ridiculous assertion that outlets like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times conspire to Keep the Man Down) simply because they exist in the mainstream, and, therefore, are recognizable.
Mister Katz takes this argument to the epitome of lunacy, arguing that media is undergoing "corporatization" (defined as organizations associating freely, but not to Mr. Katz's taste) and that you, me, and my neighbor should care -- it "ought to be a hot political issue." In fact, one could infer that the reason why Mr. Katz's column appears not in The Washington Post but rather an online rag has much to do with a "Big Media" conspiracy to keep his opinion out of the public view.
And he does this by calling newspapers of both good and poor quality one name -- "Big Media." Say it with me now: "Big Media" controls your thoughts. "Big Media" will take over the world. "Big Media" must be stopped.
This makes a column? Sadly, yes. Quoth Katz:
The process that has essentially homogenized the popular press and made it irrelevant to anybody under 50 is spreading online, unopposed by regulators or by the Netizens who ought to be up in arms about the creation of a monstrous entity like AOL Time-Warner.
The ridiculousness of such a passage is astonishing. "Essentially homogenized?" Check out http://www.fair.org/ or the Media Research Center, both of whom strive to point out media bias, FAIR being liberal, the MRC being conservative. And they are not creatures of the web -- both were founded in the mid-1980s! Oh, and Brill's Content often runs two news articles side by side that, apparently, cover the same story, but come out w/the opposite headlines. Homogonized?
The idea that any newspaper or news station is "irrelevent to anybody under 50" is not only wrong, it shines of ignorance. C-SPAN callers come from all walks of life. CNN, FoxNews, etc. get decent if not fantastic demographics from the 25-54 age group. OpinionJournal.com, which echoes WSJ editorials, wouldn't work at all if it only appealed to AARP members. And if a doughnut was valued more than a copy of the New York Times, the commuter rail to Grand Central would be littered with crumbs, not the "House & Home" section.
But no! The notion that people may not care if media is "Big" or "monstrous" or, erroneously, "homogonized" is impossible! Why? Because, asserts Mr. Katz, things that are "Big" or "monstrous" or having to do with corporations or conglomerates or other things are ipso facto evil! Perish the thought that people may not care because they weren't reading Suck or Salon or Inside.com anyway -- out of personal preference -- and instead wished to continue reading the Chicago Tribune -- but did so via an AOL dialup.
When reality does not support your political motives, it works to call your enemies names. If anything is homogonized about media, that's what it is -- and Mr. Katz has shown that he is willing to add his name to that milk carton.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It extends the protections from the federal government to cover state action.
You are right, but he's referring to the Estate Tax (or "Death Tax"). And if Warren Buffet doesn't like a tax cut, nothing is stopping him from writing a big fat check to Uncle Sam. Apparently, having billions of dollars is not enough; he wants to control my money, too.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree it's more liberal than not (understatement), that's not the real issue. Instead, it's the Howard Stern Postulate: You have to have people who read (listen to) you because they hate you, too.
And people who disagree aren't going to pay $1, let alone $20.
I have like a dozen feedback, all by buying stuff. So... that'd work.
There has been no finding whatsoever regarding the truth behind Nike's press releases. In fact, the truth has nothing to do with this at all.
The question posed to the CA Court was simple: Are "misleading" releases from a copororation actionably in the same sense that false advertising is?
Somehow, the Court came to a "yes" decision. This is one of the worst decisions in recent history:
1) False advertising is already disallowed. So, no, Nike can't say that "We pay all our workers more than $1/hr" if it isn't true, nor could they before the decision. Similarly, even before this decision, Phillip Morris couldn't legally claim that cigarrettes would make you bulletproof.
2) Lying about your oppontents is libel and/or slander, and is actionable. It has been for a long, long time. But this ruling expands actionably causes to truths that are, according to some judge or jury, vaguely and subjectively "misleading." Even if it the truth.
3) The anti-sweatshop individuals can exaggerate and mislead all they want. And they still can.
So, yes, you are misreading it. And I think most of Slashdot is.
We're amazed that a bunch of kids in India can use the web, but have no trouble believing that a survivor of war-torn Afghanistan can (a) get a Commodore on the 'net and (b) emails Jon Katz when he does.
The Sim packages would be good for political insight -- if you believe that dictorial decisions make for the best political system. Could you imagine a mayor who unilaterally bulldozes industrial zones for a park? Or if the city would brown-out if the Mayor didn't like nuclear power? Or if, like me, you wanted a stadium near your house?
I own a copy of it. And it sucks.
Bad.
But the fact of the matter is that the Bea Arthur, Jefferson Airplane Starship Starship, and Diahann Carroll appearances don't help it. It still sucks. Apparently it has since it came out -- which is why it's so hard to find.
If N'Sync wants to have something to do with Star Wars, then they can -- it's called a music video. Yeah, like Cyndi Lauper's that rode the Goonies coattails. Lucas/N'Sync can sell each video for $10 to the teenyboppers. But come on -- if you need to put N'Sync in the movie itself....
Dear god, I'm going to waste $20 on this movie.
Today, Mr. Katz starts with "An open information society is inevitable." But in the past, he often chose to rail on the ad hominemly named "Big Media" for, well, trying to silence other opinions. You've seen this drivel -- Katz claiming that CNNSIAOLTIMEWARNERLOONEYTOONS will take over the world, imposing de facto restrictions on certain opinions, etc.
But today, open information is inevitable.
Seriously, what am I missing?
Did you give it to him? You could have used it on that penultimate word.
Don't blame Sony, MS, Nintendo, the MPAA, theaters, or record companies for the rating system being de facto ratings. It's not their fault.
The ratings are mostly harmless, at least to ideals such as free speech and free expression. It costs nearly nothing to put the ESRB rating on a game. But the benefits it extolls are enormous. Parents -- well, some of them, at least -- like the ratings. Those who don't could care less about the black-on-white tilted "E." But really, which kind of parent is going to scream if the label isn't there? From this view, it's a good PR move for the companies to have such labeling. For those who believe that companies should take the high road and refuse to crumbled under the public's (and, more importantly, their customer's) desires, PLEASE, do not go into business for yourself.
Second: Labeling shifts the burdern of suitability monitering from the parents to, well, no one.
* Movie theaters can refuse to allow teens into R-rated movies. Parents no longer have to pre-screen movies (either by viewing or reading reviews). Movie producers do not have to worry about the suitability of their content -- hey, it's labeled! Theaters are also usually under no legal obligation to deny access to R and PG-13 films.
* Since the TV ratings came to be, sexual content has skyrocketed. Why? Because TV producers push the envelope -- now that it is labeled (see above), parents cannot complain. No surprises equals no complaints.
* Remember how everyone shut up about the vulgarity of Two Live Crew after the "Warning: Explicit Lyrics" tag came to be? And remember how bands wore it as a badge of honor?
The exception to this is video/computer games. Quite simply, the ESRB rating came soon after the advent of console gaming -- within a few years. Well, at least within a few years of graphics good enough to be considered vulgar. They were a response more to other labeling -- not so much do to objectionable video game content.
This goes to show that the market demand for labeling exists -in and of itself-. The industries in question do not require them for the sake of limiting speech. They require them because it makes for a better -- that is, more sellable -- product. And they are right.
Being born in 1977, I only saw Jedi in theaters, and am too young to have seen the New Hope and Empire trailers.
As luck (and eBay) would have it, I purchased a copy of the Star Wars Holiday Special (it is -hideous-). Appended to the end were a lot of trailers... and the EpII trailer (Vaderbreath) is a lot like one of the Empire ones.
Empire is my favorite one of them all, so, keep hope alive.
I always knew he was a speaker. And I think he's loud. And full of hot air.
Yep, Inflatable Loud Speaker all right.
That's why Katz loves it.
But if they can make money with ads -- and, if this increases revenues -- great. With ad revenue included, they may already have "enough" subscribers -- and therefore should stay in business.
So -that's- why I never see "Pigs In Space" anymore. Damn. I loved that sketch.
Why is it, that when Apple donates $1m and probably another $1m in computers, /. cheers, but when MS gives away $5m and another $5m in software, they boo?
/.
Good for Apple.
Good for MS.
Bad for
Expect them to be gone forever, if they involve violence _and_ the WTC.
The second to last Seinfeld episode, it is rumored, to not be available for syndication. During the episode, Kramer (I think) accidentally burns a Puerto Rican flag during the Puerto Rican Day parade in NYC, to the dismay (if not horror) of many viewers.
During the same episode, Elaine, during some rant, complains that she "went to Tufts [University]" and that it was her "safety." At the time it first aired, I was at Tufts (as a student), watching the episode with about 100 others in an on-campus eatery. Suffice it to say that I would love to see that episode again, and, given a few minutes notice, would tape it.
But the sensitivities of others have seemingly denied me that opportunity. A local station here claims to be airing "every" episode, from the beginning, starting either this week or next. Will they show the PRDP episode? We'll see.
The WTC attack is extremely more difficult for a much larger audience. If a show that pulled no punches could be offed by a six minute segment, don't be surprised if network executives choose, for the "greater good," to throw sightings of the WTC down the Orwellian Memory Hole.
I'm not trying to be defensively obnoxious here (heck, I'm not defending anything!), but I don't really understand why the Congressman is interested in "why" of open source. Part of this stems from my take on American politics; that is, there should be no fixed constellation of political orthodoxy, but mainly, I'd like to know of what concern it is to Boucher.
If it comes up, could you ask him why he wants to know? I'm more curious than anything else, but it seems that "why" really shouldn't matter, just "that" people do, indeed, code to give the code away.
The disclaimers are really funny. I'll stop there and not ruin them for you.
Write a check to an International AIDS foundation. It's much more effective than claiming that Brazil is not only in the right, but that what they are doing is good.
What truly ills stomachs is when a short-sighted "solution" -- in this case, theft -- is justified for saving lives. But it does not save lives; it merely trades some lives for many others. If Brazil were to have an epidemic that American companies were already researching a cure for (let's say, West Nile virus or something), would American companies sink an extra dime into R&D? Not anymore. And you cannot violate that drug's patent, for the drug does not exist.
But, if all the "SAVE REAL HUMAN LIVES" > "SO IT CAN MAKE MONEY" people out there decided that, instead of pricing people out of live-saving drungs, donated some cash or time to AIDS organizations, both conditions would be met: Lives would be saved and R&D would continue.
No, we can't do everything; as it is, my status on the unemployed line means I only have time to volunteer. But to claim that some pharmacist with three kids and a dog or a lab technician with two elderly parents are less important than an AIDS patient in Brazil is a claim none of us can make.
If you want to make a difference, stop complaining. Stop spending other people's money. Stop making decisions for others. Do what you can within your means, and the world we be a better place. But go beyond that, and you are no longer doing good.
Kohan -- which /. pimped last week -- is a fantastic RTS game, and I'm told that one only needs 1 CD for a LAN game. (It may be 1 CD for 2 or 3 people, not sure. Check the message boards at the above link.)
WC2 was a fun RTS, but it was truly a clickfest. Kohan (and for that matter, Total Annihilation) were both much more robust games. But neither really became SimBase games; either would make an excellent LAN party game.
Two weeks ago, some of my friends went to see Legally Blonde. "Matinee," I thought, referring to the price I'd like to play -- about $4 -- to see a movie that proudly portrays its vapitidy. I, and other friends, went to see The Score instead. I may see Legally Blonde this afternoon, but it's looking increasingly unlikely. $8.50 (the regular price of a movie) saved; $4.50 if I end up seeing it during the day.
Mr. Katz ended up not only saving the money, but seeing the movie.
Last Wednesday, my friends wanted to see JP3. I, having not particularly liked the first and downright hated the second, said no thanks, have fun, and smell ya later. Another $8.50 saved.
Mr. Katz ended up seeing enough of the movie to walk out on it (apparently, my foresight is 20/20, if his opinion is to be trusted), and did so without paying for it.
I'll likely see America's Sweethearts soon. That's $8.50 I'll spend.
Mr. Katz also paid full price to see America's Sweethearts (we'll assume the ticket printed "Jurassic Park 3" was simply clerk error), but is actually paid -- by a corporation, nonetheless -- to do so.
So, here we have me, Average Joe Moviegoer, unable to see every movie that comes out due to budgetary prioritizing. On the other hand, Corporate Moviegoer Jon goes to not one, not two, but THREE movies for the price of one, recognizes the illegality (but not immorality) of his actions, and then gets PAID to do it.
As movie theaters' profits are based on economies of scale -- that is, each moviegoer gives them increasingly more income, per person -- Corporate Jon has in effect stolen doubly from the theaters. I say we blame the evil entity known as Big MovieReviewing. After all, corporations have no moral compass, and Mr. Katz is a shining example.
Times have changed,
ISPs are getting worse,
They won't obey their contract,
They just want to fart and curse!
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should we blame the images on TV?
No!
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
With all their beady little eyes,
And flappin' heads so full of lies,
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
We need to form a full assault!
It's Canada's fault!
Don't blame me for AOL,
They saw the contract loophole,
And now their off to bloody Hell!
And of course Bill Gates,
One had Solaris on his shelf,
But now, when I see him,
He tells me to fsck myself!
Well,
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
It seems everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along.
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
They're not even a real country, anyway.
My ISP could have lasted me until 2094,
Instead it's on the heap like the Adam and Commodore.
Should we blame Jon Katz?
Should we blame Wired?
Or the marketers who allowed it be retired?
Heck, no!
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
With all their hockey hullabaloo,
And that bitch Anne Murray, too,
Blame Canada!
Big Media
Big Tobacco
Big Oil
Big deal.
This column would get moderated down as a toothless, ad hominem attack -- it claims to tarnish an entity (in this case, by making the ridiculous assertion that outlets like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times conspire to Keep the Man Down) simply because they exist in the mainstream, and, therefore, are recognizable.
Mister Katz takes this argument to the epitome of lunacy, arguing that media is undergoing "corporatization" (defined as organizations associating freely, but not to Mr. Katz's taste) and that you, me, and my neighbor should care -- it "ought to be a hot political issue." In fact, one could infer that the reason why Mr. Katz's column appears not in The Washington Post but rather an online rag has much to do with a "Big Media" conspiracy to keep his opinion out of the public view.
And he does this by calling newspapers of both good and poor quality one name -- "Big Media." Say it with me now: "Big Media" controls your thoughts. "Big Media" will take over the world. "Big Media" must be stopped.
This makes a column? Sadly, yes. Quoth Katz:
The process that has essentially homogenized the popular press and made it irrelevant to anybody under 50 is spreading online, unopposed by regulators or by the Netizens who ought to be up in arms about the creation of a monstrous entity like AOL Time-Warner.
The ridiculousness of such a passage is astonishing. "Essentially homogenized?" Check out http://www.fair.org/ or the Media Research Center, both of whom strive to point out media bias, FAIR being liberal, the MRC being conservative. And they are not creatures of the web -- both were founded in the mid-1980s! Oh, and Brill's Content often runs two news articles side by side that, apparently, cover the same story, but come out w/the opposite headlines. Homogonized?
The idea that any newspaper or news station is "irrelevent to anybody under 50" is not only wrong, it shines of ignorance. C-SPAN callers come from all walks of life. CNN, FoxNews, etc. get decent if not fantastic demographics from the 25-54 age group. OpinionJournal.com, which echoes WSJ editorials, wouldn't work at all if it only appealed to AARP members. And if a doughnut was valued more than a copy of the New York Times, the commuter rail to Grand Central would be littered with crumbs, not the "House & Home" section.
But no! The notion that people may not care if media is "Big" or "monstrous" or, erroneously, "homogonized" is impossible! Why? Because, asserts Mr. Katz, things that are "Big" or "monstrous" or having to do with corporations or conglomerates or other things are ipso facto evil! Perish the thought that people may not care because they weren't reading Suck or Salon or Inside.com anyway -- out of personal preference -- and instead wished to continue reading the Chicago Tribune -- but did so via an AOL dialup.
When reality does not support your political motives, it works to call your enemies names. If anything is homogonized about media, that's what it is -- and Mr. Katz has shown that he is willing to add his name to that milk carton.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It extends the protections from the federal government to cover state action.
You are right, but he's referring to the Estate Tax (or "Death Tax"). And if Warren Buffet doesn't like a tax cut, nothing is stopping him from writing a big fat check to Uncle Sam. Apparently, having billions of dollars is not enough; he wants to control my money, too.