It's nice of Beck to mention that. It's a shame anyone else on Fox ever had Orly Taitz on, unless it was some attempt to get her into therapy.
That's the way Fox plays. Anything they're caught on is somehow on isolated incident, and other shows on the same channel will disagree with it and see it as a shame. But all this mistakes or implications somehow *always* skew for the GOP.
They also often identify Lieberman as a Democrat, which irritates me no end. He was kicked out of the Democratic party and forced to run as an independent because of his constant selling out of other Democrats. That's still the main role he seems to play as an independent - his recent episode of actually helping with DADT is notable in it's great rarity...
There's a difference between ungrounded assumptions of non-experts and the reasonable expectations of experts.
Since it is the opinion of nearly every single unbiased economic expert AND the non-partisan CBO that the stimulus saved and created millions of jobs and helped stop our freefall into a second great depression, disagreeing with these opinions should at least require some facts.
The reality that those who don't want to believe this can cherry-pick, shift arguments and ignore these opinions doesn't disprove them. But it can make people find ideological comfort in *thinking* their disproven - which is the greatest danger of super-partisan outfits like Fox News.
The Economist used to be a good magazine. But ever since they pushed the Bush tax cuts as good for the economy, in violation of nearly every proven economic principle, I lost all respect for them.
I'd rather read Paul Krugman. Yes, he's liberal. But he also has this very offensive habit of being correct.
They don't profess Obama was born elsewhere - they just leave it as a "question". Like they don't profess Obama is a Socialist / Muslim terrorist sympathizer / Elitist. Just slap a question mark there and it's good enough not to be sued.
They're also primarily responsible for the complete nonsense that the 2008 economic implosion was due to Fannie Mae => Democrats => let's keep deregulating and lowering taxes. Again raised as questions, where counter-questions or completely disproving info is simply ignored.
And the news segments are only slightly less bad than the pundit commentary. It's as much about what they *don't* report as they do. For instance, my parents who are unfortunately possessed by Fox News had no idea that Texas is $25 billion in debt - because Fox talks constantly about California's woes and pushes no-state-income-tax Texas as some kind of paradise. Or the CONSTANT number of times the title card beneath someone is "somehow" the wrong party - so a Republican in trouble is shown as a "Democrat". Funny how these mistakes are always in the GOP's favor.
All mass media is not to be trusted. But Fox is to be trusted last of all. They really are objectively the worst.
I can sort-of-but-noq-quite agree re:SCOTUS' ability to strike down laws. This is a power that was directly given but was presumed implied in the Constitution, and has become the Supreme Court's power by precedent - and this precedent had been well established before Dred Scott.
So striking down laws would have been legally correct and Constitutionally permitted in Dred Scott, via the power of precedent.
But as re: the other points -
1 - If Dred Scott was not and could not be a citizen, it would have been legally correct to simply dismiss the case. Any further judgements would be moot and thus legally incorrect.
4 - this was also not relevant to the matter before the court, so including this as a reason for the ruling is legally as well as morally incorrect also.
First, SCOTUS judges have the Constitutional power to strike down laws entirely. The SCOTUS could have overruled Missouri and freed Scott, and still been "legally correct".
Second, Dred Scott was actually legally incorrect as well as immoral. Driven by fears of a Civil War on behalf of James Buchanan - probably the worst President in US history - the SCOTUS ruled:
1. slaves were not citizens so they had no right to sue anyone in court, even in non-slave states
2. no one who was once a slave could be freed by moving to a non-slave state.
3. most significantly, when new territories became states they would NOT be allowed to ban slavery within their boundaries. And this in fact was a significant overstep - the court had no legal right to declare this, as it wasn't even before the court.
4. blacks were inferior anyway, so this would keep them from moving to different states to be free and thus upsetting white people.
Overall a putrid, horrid and awful ruling in every way. But worth studying, just to note how far we have actually moved as a society - at least in the US.
The problem with that is exactly the problem with every other company that becomes a monopoly: it becomes able to assert a level of control that prevents free competition. This hurts not only their customers but the public as a whole.
I suggest you read up on the Robber Baron era, and understand why we developed antitrust laws in the first place, so you can become more familiar with this concept.
That's where we differ. Your idiocy IS worth the contribution to universal entropy that would be created by my neurons, because your idiocy left unchecked would create much more entropy.
See, I can insult you back, or we can have a rational discussion. To paraphrase Rush, if you choose not to be rational you still have made a choice.
This is not an "ethical standard" of Apple's. They are clearly going to use the information for their **own** advertising. They just don't want to pass the information on to benefit anyone else.
Which is in Apple's best interest - just not in the rest of ours interest, as it helps further solidify Apple as a monopoly.
If you think Apple won't use that same information to push their *own* advertising, I have an underwater bridge on the moon you may want to invest in. It has a variable-rate mortgage credit default swap based in Nigeria.
Are you attempting to suggest that Apple does NOT have an incredible amount of control over the music industry? If so, I don't see how you can make that argument.
And Apple themselves had to bludgeoned into giving up DRM. The only reason they did was because people were downloading torrents rather than put up with Apple's DRM.
Nor has Apple's weight only been used to benefit users. For example, Tool doesn't want to sell their songs individually on iTunes. But Apple refuses to budge from selling songs individually. Therefore Tool is not making their music available on itunes - which is a loss to users. And Tool is only one example of this larger issue, of Apple's insistence on breaking up albums into singles.
But you're right with eBooks - they are another area in which Apple is simply not to be trusted with being the exclusive pipeline for that media. Which Apple has proven consistently that they will attempt to do, for every single kind of media they can get a fingerhold on.
Overreaction, huh? You recall how Apple recently deleted an App that showed Android information? Did you think that was particularly cool?
IF Apple becomes the default delivery mechanism for magazine publishing, then we are in just as much trouble as if **any** single corporation controlled publishing.
And if you don't think that's a problem waiting to happen, I suggest you read up on William Randolph Hearst. The guy who actually pushed the US into a war to sell newspapers - and succeeded.
Do you not think that can ever happen again, for some reason? If so, please tell me. I'd love to have an optimistic view of this.
It is exactly what I wrote - "squeeze out magazine **publishers**." Sure, individual users could decide to do that - if they wanted to.
But what I'm talking about is Apple as a delivery platform. If Apple becomes the default e-publishing platform and decide to raise rates on all publishers, the publishers **would not** be able to switch their subscribers to a different platform the **publishers** chose. It would be up to convincing every single one of their audience to move.
Do you see what i'm saying?
b) Apple wants to be put themselves completely in the driver's seat with any possible online-only ad revenue for these magazines.
Where do you get that from?
From the article:
"Publishers want the ability to sell the subscriptions themselves, or at least the opportunity to hang on to subscribers' personal data, and Steve Jobs won't let them....It's valuable to them for marketing because the demographic data helps magazines sell advertising, and without it they can't offer print/digital bundles."
See? Apple **keeping** that info AND not passing it on to the magazines automatically gives Apple the upper hand in ANY kind of marketing. Which is the only reason why they wouldn't pass on the non-credit-card-info.
Which is exactly why the magazines and Apple are at an impasse. Magazine publishers can tell this means they're all working for Jobs.
It's *not* the publisher's "right" to do that. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not discussing the rights of corporations to do x or y or z.
What I'm saying is that this power in Apple's hands is bad for **citizens** and **free speech**. It is exactly the same sort of issue, actually, as Comcast charging Netflix more money. It's more potential anti-free-speech capability in the hands of those who control our access to information.
I thought Ticketmaster was bad. Apple now runs what's left of the music industry with iTunes, and wants to do the same with publishing. Apple wants to a) squeeze out magazine publishers from being able to shift subscribers OUT OF Apple's store if they later choose, and b) Apple wants to be put themselves completely in the driver's seat with any possible online-only ad revenue for these magazines.
And it's completely their capitalistic right to do both - unless our regulated market realizes it's in the best interest of consumer choice to *not* allow Apple to have this potential stranglehold on information. What if Apple becomes the default magazine-delivery platform, and they decided they don't want to host any magazines OR ads that say good things about Android? Or mention that the new iPhone (x) has a tendency to explode?
I sure hope Apple doesn't succeed in this. If they do, it sure was nice living in a world where the average citizen had something like a fair shot.
Took off in a boat for a couple of years? That's pretty awesome, at least in theory. I guess having a nice cash cushion would make that a lot easier.
I liked Alternic. I was sad to see them flame out like that. It really did preset the potential for a freer Internet, where yearly fees wouldn't be siphoned off for a limited number of top-level domains...the.sex domain also being a fine idea IMHO.
Or at least, what Alternic was trying to do before Eugene Kashpureff hijacked the "mainstream" domain names to pass through Alternic, and split for Canada to try to beat the heat...
Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to sell particular items through their own store? If that's the case, who would you envision as the arbiter of what they should be forced to carry?
Since this is a monopolistic and anti-competitive practice, the government would be a good arbiter.
A similar example would be if, once Comcast buys NBC.com, they decide not to carry ABC or CBS to any of their millions of subscribers. Would that be cool? Not at all. But that would be their right - if there weren't antitrust statutes in place to stop them.
Yes, but is that sufficient legally? Seems very circumstantial as admissible evidence. Of course the school can make it's own rules, but I'm sure an expulsion on those grounds would have led to multiple lawsuits by angry parents believing their little dear's story, or not caring but just wanting that degree they paid for.
It seems to me like the kids could have successfully resisted expulsion if singled out individually.
The "psychologist" may just not want to say it. Not only because it's subjective, but also because it's probably accurate. The specific kind of smarts is a genuinely evidence-based smartness, as opposed to a rationalization-to-support-the-status-quo sort of cleverness. This by itself means that those offended will find all sorts of reasons to not listen, and instead rationalize how bad/liberal the psychologist is.
No thanks. I like having a good interstate highway system, pollution regulations, and a health care system that approaches the rest of the world some day.
For the last true Left in government I would even go as far back as FDR, or MAYBE Truman. JFK was a neoliberal - socially liberal, but pretty pro-business and also pro-militaristic intervention against non-combatant nations.
Although what is referred to as "Left" has moved so far to the right nowadays, that freakin' Richard Nixon would be a liberal by current standards.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nice of Beck to mention that. It's a shame anyone else on Fox ever had Orly Taitz on, unless it was some attempt to get her into therapy.
That's the way Fox plays. Anything they're caught on is somehow on isolated incident, and other shows on the same channel will disagree with it and see it as a shame. But all this mistakes or implications somehow *always* skew for the GOP.
Sure. Here's Republican Governer Mark Sanford right after being outed as an adulterer, suddenly Democrat:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906240026
Mark Foley, right after being caught going after pages. And some other cases too:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010?src=other
They also often identify Lieberman as a Democrat, which irritates me no end. He was kicked out of the Democratic party and forced to run as an independent because of his constant selling out of other Democrats. That's still the main role he seems to play as an independent - his recent episode of actually helping with DADT is notable in it's great rarity...
There's a difference between ungrounded assumptions of non-experts and the reasonable expectations of experts.
Since it is the opinion of nearly every single unbiased economic expert AND the non-partisan CBO that the stimulus saved and created millions of jobs and helped stop our freefall into a second great depression, disagreeing with these opinions should at least require some facts.
The reality that those who don't want to believe this can cherry-pick, shift arguments and ignore these opinions doesn't disprove them. But it can make people find ideological comfort in *thinking* their disproven - which is the greatest danger of super-partisan outfits like Fox News.
The Economist used to be a good magazine. But ever since they pushed the Bush tax cuts as good for the economy, in violation of nearly every proven economic principle, I lost all respect for them.
I'd rather read Paul Krugman. Yes, he's liberal. But he also has this very offensive habit of being correct.
They don't profess Obama was born elsewhere - they just leave it as a "question". Like they don't profess Obama is a Socialist / Muslim terrorist sympathizer / Elitist. Just slap a question mark there and it's good enough not to be sued.
They're also primarily responsible for the complete nonsense that the 2008 economic implosion was due to Fannie Mae => Democrats => let's keep deregulating and lowering taxes. Again raised as questions, where counter-questions or completely disproving info is simply ignored.
And the news segments are only slightly less bad than the pundit commentary. It's as much about what they *don't* report as they do. For instance, my parents who are unfortunately possessed by Fox News had no idea that Texas is $25 billion in debt - because Fox talks constantly about California's woes and pushes no-state-income-tax Texas as some kind of paradise. Or the CONSTANT number of times the title card beneath someone is "somehow" the wrong party - so a Republican in trouble is shown as a "Democrat". Funny how these mistakes are always in the GOP's favor.
All mass media is not to be trusted. But Fox is to be trusted last of all. They really are objectively the worst.
In other words, the stickiness of truthiness is perilous.
I can sort-of-but-noq-quite agree re:SCOTUS' ability to strike down laws. This is a power that was directly given but was presumed implied in the Constitution, and has become the Supreme Court's power by precedent - and this precedent had been well established before Dred Scott.
So striking down laws would have been legally correct and Constitutionally permitted in Dred Scott, via the power of precedent.
But as re: the other points -
1 - If Dred Scott was not and could not be a citizen, it would have been legally correct to simply dismiss the case. Any further judgements would be moot and thus legally incorrect.
4 - this was also not relevant to the matter before the court, so including this as a reason for the ruling is legally as well as morally incorrect also.
Disagree.
First, SCOTUS judges have the Constitutional power to strike down laws entirely. The SCOTUS could have overruled Missouri and freed Scott, and still been "legally correct".
Second, Dred Scott was actually legally incorrect as well as immoral. Driven by fears of a Civil War on behalf of James Buchanan - probably the worst President in US history - the SCOTUS ruled:
1. slaves were not citizens so they had no right to sue anyone in court, even in non-slave states
2. no one who was once a slave could be freed by moving to a non-slave state.
3. most significantly, when new territories became states they would NOT be allowed to ban slavery within their boundaries. And this in fact was a significant overstep - the court had no legal right to declare this, as it wasn't even before the court.
4. blacks were inferior anyway, so this would keep them from moving to different states to be free and thus upsetting white people.
Overall a putrid, horrid and awful ruling in every way. But worth studying, just to note how far we have actually moved as a society - at least in the US.
The problem with that is exactly the problem with every other company that becomes a monopoly: it becomes able to assert a level of control that prevents free competition. This hurts not only their customers but the public as a whole.
I suggest you read up on the Robber Baron era, and understand why we developed antitrust laws in the first place, so you can become more familiar with this concept.
That's where we differ. Your idiocy IS worth the contribution to universal entropy that would be created by my neurons, because your idiocy left unchecked would create much more entropy.
See, I can insult you back, or we can have a rational discussion. To paraphrase Rush, if you choose not to be rational you still have made a choice.
Wow, great refutation. What is that, the Socraptic method?
This is not an "ethical standard" of Apple's. They are clearly going to use the information for their **own** advertising. They just don't want to pass the information on to benefit anyone else.
Which is in Apple's best interest - just not in the rest of ours interest, as it helps further solidify Apple as a monopoly.
If you think Apple won't use that same information to push their *own* advertising, I have an underwater bridge on the moon you may want to invest in. It has a variable-rate mortgage credit default swap based in Nigeria.
Are you attempting to suggest that Apple does NOT have an incredible amount of control over the music industry? If so, I don't see how you can make that argument.
And Apple themselves had to bludgeoned into giving up DRM. The only reason they did was because people were downloading torrents rather than put up with Apple's DRM.
Nor has Apple's weight only been used to benefit users. For example, Tool doesn't want to sell their songs individually on iTunes. But Apple refuses to budge from selling songs individually. Therefore Tool is not making their music available on itunes - which is a loss to users. And Tool is only one example of this larger issue, of Apple's insistence on breaking up albums into singles.
But you're right with eBooks - they are another area in which Apple is simply not to be trusted with being the exclusive pipeline for that media. Which Apple has proven consistently that they will attempt to do, for every single kind of media they can get a fingerhold on.
Overreaction, huh? You recall how Apple recently deleted an App that showed Android information? Did you think that was particularly cool?
IF Apple becomes the default delivery mechanism for magazine publishing, then we are in just as much trouble as if **any** single corporation controlled publishing.
And if you don't think that's a problem waiting to happen, I suggest you read up on William Randolph Hearst. The guy who actually pushed the US into a war to sell newspapers - and succeeded.
Do you not think that can ever happen again, for some reason? If so, please tell me. I'd love to have an optimistic view of this.
But what I'm talking about is Apple as a delivery platform. If Apple becomes the default e-publishing platform and decide to raise rates on all publishers, the publishers **would not** be able to switch their subscribers to a different platform the **publishers** chose. It would be up to convincing every single one of their audience to move.
Do you see what i'm saying?
From the article:
See? Apple **keeping** that info AND not passing it on to the magazines automatically gives Apple the upper hand in ANY kind of marketing. Which is the only reason why they wouldn't pass on the non-credit-card-info.
Which is exactly why the magazines and Apple are at an impasse. Magazine publishers can tell this means they're all working for Jobs.
It's *not* the publisher's "right" to do that. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not discussing the rights of corporations to do x or y or z.
What I'm saying is that this power in Apple's hands is bad for **citizens** and **free speech**. It is exactly the same sort of issue, actually, as Comcast charging Netflix more money. It's more potential anti-free-speech capability in the hands of those who control our access to information.
I thought Ticketmaster was bad. Apple now runs what's left of the music industry with iTunes, and wants to do the same with publishing. Apple wants to a) squeeze out magazine publishers from being able to shift subscribers OUT OF Apple's store if they later choose, and b) Apple wants to be put themselves completely in the driver's seat with any possible online-only ad revenue for these magazines.
And it's completely their capitalistic right to do both - unless our regulated market realizes it's in the best interest of consumer choice to *not* allow Apple to have this potential stranglehold on information. What if Apple becomes the default magazine-delivery platform, and they decided they don't want to host any magazines OR ads that say good things about Android? Or mention that the new iPhone (x) has a tendency to explode?
I sure hope Apple doesn't succeed in this. If they do, it sure was nice living in a world where the average citizen had something like a fair shot.
I liked Alternic. I was sad to see them flame out like that. It really did preset the potential for a freer Internet, where yearly fees wouldn't be siphoned off for a limited number of top-level domains...the .sex domain also being a fine idea IMHO.
but sorry to bring back the memories....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternic
Since this is a monopolistic and anti-competitive practice, the government would be a good arbiter.
A similar example would be if, once Comcast buys NBC.com, they decide not to carry ABC or CBS to any of their millions of subscribers. Would that be cool? Not at all. But that would be their right - if there weren't antitrust statutes in place to stop them.
Yes, but is that sufficient legally? Seems very circumstantial as admissible evidence. Of course the school can make it's own rules, but I'm sure an expulsion on those grounds would have led to multiple lawsuits by angry parents believing their little dear's story, or not caring but just wanting that degree they paid for.
It seems to me like the kids could have successfully resisted expulsion if singled out individually.
The "psychologist" may just not want to say it. Not only because it's subjective, but also because it's probably accurate. The specific kind of smarts is a genuinely evidence-based smartness, as opposed to a rationalization-to-support-the-status-quo sort of cleverness. This by itself means that those offended will find all sorts of reasons to not listen, and instead rationalize how bad/liberal the psychologist is.
No thanks. I like having a good interstate highway system, pollution regulations, and a health care system that approaches the rest of the world some day.
For the last true Left in government I would even go as far back as FDR, or MAYBE Truman. JFK was a neoliberal - socially liberal, but pretty pro-business and also pro-militaristic intervention against non-combatant nations.
Although what is referred to as "Left" has moved so far to the right nowadays, that freakin' Richard Nixon would be a liberal by current standards.