So you think international control sounds reasonable, but you don't want "politics" involved. How could control be turned over to an international body without politics being involved? I don't know if you understand what the word "international" means. The body wouldn't be international if politics weren't involved.
I buy my electricity from my town.
I buy my gas from my town.
I buy my water from my town.
I buy my sewer service from my town.
I buy my phone service from my town.
The prices and service are great. My water is delicious.
What if a city wants to put up 5 or 6 wireless access points in areas that are frequented by tourists and business travelers? Let's say that they could do it for a few thousand dollars a year. That may be worth it if it makes the city more attractive to visitors. Those visitors spend money and pay hotel taxes. The city is happy and the visitors are happy.
But, this bill would prohibit the city from doing this, even though municipal wireless system like this makes a lot of sense. I just think that you haven't considered just how broad this bill is. It bans a city from providing network services. Period. There are some ideas for municipal wireless systems which are probably not good ideas. But why can't they let the municipalities make those decisions?
What is the relevance of your claim to this bill? Let's say that some town like Austin wanted to set up wireless access points in public areas popular with tourists and business travelers. That would be a tremendous service to the public and would make tourists and business travelers very pleased and make them want to come back to Austin. However, that would be forbidden by this bill. Explain to me what your generalities about state-run telcos has to do with whether Austin should be able to provide a useful service such as the one I am describing here.
You'd think that they would want to attract tourists and tech-savvy residents, who just happen to be the people who would be most attracted to municipal wireless. I guess not. Well, their loss. The only people to blame are the Texans who elected a group of people who want to reward telcos and cable companies at the expense of the residents.
I should say that I all of my utilities are provided by my municipality and the rates and service are great.
Wow. Pesticides. You're really grasping at straws now. So, pesticides count as WMDs. That's good to know because I wouldn't want to use WMDs on my house plants.
I think he was under the impression that she was out. If you're not out and you're the daughter of a well-known columnist, it's probably not a good idea to post something about your sexual orientation on a public site.
That being said, I think it's definitely valid to ask "Dr. Keyes, do you think that you're own daughter is evil and immoral?"
What was Saddam going to hurt me with? Spitballs? There weren't any WMDs there. He wasn't supporting any terrorists. I was safer before we invaded than I am now.
I sort of assumed that you wanted to make a relevant comment. This article was only about Gannon/Guckert. If you aren't claiming that I'm a hypocrite, then what was the point of your post? Do you want to dig up every comment that reporters have ever made in White House Briefings? Maybe that would be a good project to post on your website rather than on this topic.
Both, I would say. Sometimes getting information out of the administration requires fishing or at least cutting through the spin. That happens in every administration.
Asking "questions" which don't even intend to elicit any information from the administration has no place in a Briefing though.
Ken Mehlman is gay and the he's the chairman of the RNC, a group which supports an administration that wants to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Explain to me what isn't hypocritical about that.
So if there were White House Briefings and Scott McClennan only called on people who he knew would ask leading, friendly question, do you think that would be a free press?
I didn't say anything about Helen Thomas. I comdemn her comments just as much as I do Gannon/Guckert's. Why do you assume that I would condemn one without condemning the other?
The reporters in White House Briefings aren't supposed to be making points. They are supposed to be eliciting information from the White House. If Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert wants to make points, he should call a press conference of his own. Nothing in these "questions" is meant to elicit information from the White House. They are designed to make comments on TV and nothing else.
It might be charitable to even call Gannon/Guckert's comments "questions". Here are some highlights--or should I say lowlights--from his distinguished career.
May 10, 2004: "Q In your denunciations of the Abu Ghraib photos, you've used words like 'sickening,' 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible.' Will you have any adjectives left to adequately describe the pictures from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers? And will Americans ever see those images?"
MR. McCLELLAN: "I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff, because the President talks about that often."
July 15, 2004: "Q Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn't put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the President's 16 words were 'well-founded.' Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?"
April 1, 2004: "Q I'd like to comment on the angry mob that surrounded Karl Rove's house on Sunday. They chanted and pounded on the windows until the D.C. police and Secret Service were called in. The protest was organized by the National People's Action Coalition, whose members receive taxpayer funds, as well as financial support from groups including Theresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation.
MR. McCLELLAN: "I would just say that, one, we appreciate and understand concerns that people may have. I would certainly hope that people would respect the families of White House staff."
Feb. 10, 2004: "Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?"
Slashdot Mirror
CNN
So you think international control sounds reasonable, but you don't want "politics" involved. How could control be turned over to an international body without politics being involved? I don't know if you understand what the word "international" means. The body wouldn't be international if politics weren't involved.
I bet more Bulgarians can correctly pronounce the word "nuclear" too.
I buy my electricity from my town. I buy my gas from my town. I buy my water from my town. I buy my sewer service from my town. I buy my phone service from my town. The prices and service are great. My water is delicious.
What if a city wants to put up 5 or 6 wireless access points in areas that are frequented by tourists and business travelers? Let's say that they could do it for a few thousand dollars a year. That may be worth it if it makes the city more attractive to visitors. Those visitors spend money and pay hotel taxes. The city is happy and the visitors are happy. But, this bill would prohibit the city from doing this, even though municipal wireless system like this makes a lot of sense. I just think that you haven't considered just how broad this bill is. It bans a city from providing network services. Period. There are some ideas for municipal wireless systems which are probably not good ideas. But why can't they let the municipalities make those decisions?
Instead of shutting up, I'd rather throw a party to celebrate the fact that I don't live in Texas?
What is the relevance of your claim to this bill? Let's say that some town like Austin wanted to set up wireless access points in public areas popular with tourists and business travelers. That would be a tremendous service to the public and would make tourists and business travelers very pleased and make them want to come back to Austin. However, that would be forbidden by this bill. Explain to me what your generalities about state-run telcos has to do with whether Austin should be able to provide a useful service such as the one I am describing here.
You'd think that they would want to attract tourists and tech-savvy residents, who just happen to be the people who would be most attracted to municipal wireless. I guess not. Well, their loss. The only people to blame are the Texans who elected a group of people who want to reward telcos and cable companies at the expense of the residents. I should say that I all of my utilities are provided by my municipality and the rates and service are great.
Whatever is passed can be repealed.
Wow. Pesticides. You're really grasping at straws now. So, pesticides count as WMDs. That's good to know because I wouldn't want to use WMDs on my house plants.
Quicktime
Windows Media
False. No WMDs have been found in Iraq. I know there are still a lot of people in denial, but it's pretty sad that you're still lying to yourself.
Private security contractors? I think that's the euphemism for mercenary.
I think he was under the impression that she was out. If you're not out and you're the daughter of a well-known columnist, it's probably not a good idea to post something about your sexual orientation on a public site. That being said, I think it's definitely valid to ask "Dr. Keyes, do you think that you're own daughter is evil and immoral?"
What was Saddam going to hurt me with? Spitballs? There weren't any WMDs there. He wasn't supporting any terrorists. I was safer before we invaded than I am now.
I sort of assumed that you wanted to make a relevant comment. This article was only about Gannon/Guckert. If you aren't claiming that I'm a hypocrite, then what was the point of your post? Do you want to dig up every comment that reporters have ever made in White House Briefings? Maybe that would be a good project to post on your website rather than on this topic.
Both, I would say. Sometimes getting information out of the administration requires fishing or at least cutting through the spin. That happens in every administration. Asking "questions" which don't even intend to elicit any information from the administration has no place in a Briefing though.
Ken Mehlman is gay and the he's the chairman of the RNC, a group which supports an administration that wants to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Explain to me what isn't hypocritical about that.
So if there were White House Briefings and Scott McClennan only called on people who he knew would ask leading, friendly question, do you think that would be a free press?
If you are a mercenary, you know what you are getting into. I don't think I'd say "Screw them." but they made their beds and they slept in them.
I didn't say anything about Helen Thomas. I comdemn her comments just as much as I do Gannon/Guckert's. Why do you assume that I would condemn one without condemning the other?
The reporters in White House Briefings aren't supposed to be making points. They are supposed to be eliciting information from the White House. If Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert wants to make points, he should call a press conference of his own. Nothing in these "questions" is meant to elicit information from the White House. They are designed to make comments on TV and nothing else.
Maybe you could RTFA before posting. Just a helpful hint.
Haven't you noticed the five-day lag between when news happens and when it appears on Slashdot?