"I think, given the fact it is a protest of people not reading books, it's the best way to do it," Bechtel said. "(Wayne has) made the point that not reading a book is as good as burning it."
Perpetuating the stereotype of books being the domain of crazy nerds is the best way to encourage widespread literacy?
Seems to me the only thing Wayne's "made" is at least thirty bucks, judging from the article.
Individually, the stories may or may not be true, but really, it doesn't matter
That's where we disagree, then. If the Washington Times published a list of the top 25 stories that conservatives wanted to see with more airtime, that fact in itself would not make the stories interesting/irrelevant. Such a determination can only rest on the merit of an individual story, in my view.
Halliburton's connection, through the loophole of offshore subsidiaries, with our supposed enemies in Iran has been covered by a fewmore people than Jason Leopold. If there's only one source for the specific nuclear program allegations, than they may be suspect: that doesn't change the fact that a major U.S. company, with intimate ties to a Vice President who essentially paints the opposition party as a pack of treasonous cringing hippies, is providing aid and comfort to a "rogue state" in the "Axis of Evil."
You want so badly for the story to be true you completely ignore the known fraudulent source.
And you seem to want so badly for my post to be wrong that you miss its point entirely. Good job, Anonymous Coward.
The Pentagon Papers and Iran-Contra never happened. Nope, not at all.
Good thinking! "The government has a history of doing bad things, so whatever bad thing I suggest must be true, and anyone who objects must be brainwashed and ignorant."
Let me try one: I posit that the U.S. government will soon throw sniff out all the drug users and throw them into camps. This is based on the following:
1. At the government's encouragement, drug screening is now widespread in private industry and schools. 2. The government has a substantiated history of collecting supposedly private information. 3. Halliburton received a contract to build detention camps in the U.S.
Obviously, these camps are part the "final solution" to the War on Drugs. You might want to say, "Perhaps there's another reason for building them, like preparations for mass deportation of illegal immigrants," but anyone who says this is just brainwashed, man, by the corpo-fascist thugs and their dastardly agents of deceit. Prove me wrong.
Fun as this is, I'm going to have to give it a rest. Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is exactly like arguing with a creationist: no understanding is possible in the presence of such different standards of evidence. Once the need to search for answers in empirical reality is disposed of, anything's possible. The appeal of having certain Truths, in the face of a world that rejects them, is undeniable and has formed the basis of most cults throughout history. (Christianity, for example, in the days when Christians were persecuted by harsher means than the removal of government-mandated prayer.) Far be it from me to screw with your personal religion, but if it'll make you feel better to reply to this post by once again asserting that a person you don't know is a helpless tool of forces that only those with your secret knowledge understand, go right ahead. It's still a relatively free country.
I think it's just wonderful that one can spin an entire story, without any substantiation, based solely on the well-known fact that the government is run by a bunch of shitheads. Let's follow this logic:
1. The government lies about everything.
2. Something happened.
3. Therefore, whatever the government says about that thing must be a lie.
Of course, the problem with using logical premises to make empirical determinations is that empirical reality doesn't lend itself to the generalizations of logic (statements using "all" or "everything," for example.)
But why let that stop you? If the existing physical evidence doesn't support your logical conclusions, just posit the non-existence of other evidence, more favorable to your conclusion, as support for your conclusion. That's the key to being a skillful conspiracy theorist.
Yet you shouldn't rely solely on logic to make your point. Don't forget a time-honored rhetorical device: inventing unwarranted (and inaccurate) assumptions about the beliefs of those who disagree with you. For example:
You like to think all these suicide bombing are random.
Let's sell them all our super accurate weapons so we can reduce the collateral damage. Would that make you feel better?
What in the world is with you that you would think the Americans are any less crooked than any other tin pot dictator that they prop up?
Your attempts at distraction are boundless and unmatched by anybody on the planet.
Good weed helps as well, for both writer and reader, and especially after midnight. When you need the motivation and paranoia required to type a page worth of non-sequiturs, or to appreciate reading it, nothing works better. So I hear.
Easy path? I guess you don't know too many journalists, then[...]I don't think it'd be too far off the mark to say every single reporter in the world would prefer to be Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein than the anonymous photographer who caught Lohan's nipple on camera back in 2004
I'm sure every journo entertains fantasies of being an ace investigative reporter - the couple I've had the pleasure of knowing certainly do - but the fact of the matter is that it's really hard to actually be that person. The entertainment-focused nature of the media limits the number of these positions available, while journalism students are a buck-a-dozen at many universities. As a result, most reporters aren't smart enough, ambitious enough, sociable enough, or some combination of the three to compete for the these top spots. (This isn't meant as a slight against them. It's the same situation that exists in professional sports: plenty of excellent athletes are simply not skilled enough to play at the top level of their sport, because that level consists of a few hundred guys, chosen from across the world or country.) Even those with sufficient talent may not have enough luck to exclusively catch a truly memorable or history-making story.
On the other hand, one can always get paid for celebrity trash. It's a shitty way to make a living, but its easier than "sticking to principle," if one considers not eating a difficulty. Besides, I have a hard time believing that some hacks really do enjoy their work.
Go listen to GSgt Hartmann. He'll set you straight.
I think you mean GySgt Hartmann. And besides, if serving in an actual war didn't "set me straight" by your definition, I somehow doubt that a pop culture movie character'll do the trick. Thanks for your interest, though, and good night.
It's always a tough choice: examine the substance of someone's argument and respond with your own substantive points, or ignore it completely and make an irrelevant comparison to an unrelated issue. Good job on choosing the Slashdot Way!
Ah, then they must be full of shit.
Pretty much. They would be less full of shit if they bothered to post a token non-left wing censored story.
I didn't realize that doing so would affect the individual validity/irrelevance of all the other selected stories. My bad; I keep forgetting that the presence of quantitative "balance" is the best indicator of truth. Perhaps I don't watch enough cable news.
Aww, and I was trying so hard to amuse you, as opposed to others who might have read your post and thought, "Wow, what an idiot you'd have to be thinking of/. as a "leftist" site, given its typical libertarian tone and the large number of posts critical of this particular article."
Does anyone else out there have the feeling that [the White House] is increasingly an anti-American, [rightist] swamp, of no real importance to anyone [except lobbyists]
Good post, just had to fix a bit of your spelling.
Every single one of them is a liberal activist with some political axe to grind.
Ah, then they must be full of shit. Everyone knows that you can't trust those people, so why bother to actually look into what they're reporting when it's easier to just make judgments based on political sentiment?
People who dissent against a war that is destroying America's military capability are treasonous hippies, but it's cool for Halliburton to actually enable a nuclear program conducted in the "Axis of Evil?"
Add "treason" to the list of words made meaningless by this corrupt administration and its enablers, along with "freedom," "strength," and "morality."
Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?
Absolutely. I've met plenty of these people. It's not a universal sentiment, but there seems to be enough of them to encourage news organizations to take the easy path of covering trashy gossip instead of doing investigative reporting. Sort of a "chicken and egg" issue.
We have lots of cave drawings of man with impressive animals like wooly mamoths and the like. So why are there not cave drawings of man with really impressive animals like the dinasaurs.
Yeah, it's sort of unfortunate that he voted for it, but he made a statement to the effect that he didn't agree with the constitutionality of the bill but voted for it to provide "balance" against roe v. wade.
That terribly stupid reason, assuming it's true, should be enough to disqualify any candidate.
An MSNBC employee has posted a photo on Flickr of the company's 'iPod Amnesty Bin,' which sports an image of a bitten green apple and the words 'Bite me.'
advancing educational programs 'that teach the value of strong copyright.'"
Don't they already teach this at the business schools that produce these jackasses? And do they honestly expect anyone else - say, productive members of society - to buy this line of bullshit?
I suppose working bliss is destined to escape you; I recommend finding a non-demanding job that affords ample leisure. This has been working for me for some time now.:)
"If you buy a house and then sell it within five years, congratulations on shitting away thousands."
If by shitting away thousands you mean net $150k, then thank you.
Thanks for your story of real estate success, AC. But this conversation is taking place in 2007.
In university, the students answer anonymous surveys to evaluate the teachers performance. I think that the same thing should be done for highschool and maybe even elementary school teachers.
Why, because the grade inflation and confusion of entertainment with education that such "student feedback" has produced is something we need in primary and secondary education as well?
Student feedback on empirical questions (does the teacher show up on time, have adequate materials, show up stoned, etc.) is valuable. But considering that the majority of students in a given undergrad class (certainly first and second year classes) are interested in completing a grad requirements checklist as opposed to learning, student feedback as to a teachers's effectiveness is generally worthless. Administrators reliant on such foolishness can only gauge how the students feel about the teacher in question.
If you don't mind literally throwing most of your money away every paycheck (renting vs. owning)
Indeed, homeownership is an incredible waste of money, at least for someone at the entry level of their career. People tend to forget about insurance, maintenance, taxes, and rush right into buying a house. This becomes especially wasteful when they move, which is to be expected: very few people stay at the location where they move after college, because their expectations of environment change with age, or their early career involves multiple moves (which is common in today's job market.) If you buy a house and then sell it within five years, congratulations on shitting away thousands.
On top of that, one has to take market conditions into account. With that in consideration, I suggest that if you buy a house (in most areas) between now and this time next year (at least), you should probably not be trusted with a checkbook, let alone a mortgage, considering the inflated prices of housing that are still holding over from the housing bubble.
Slashdot Mirror
Perpetuating the stereotype of books being the domain of crazy nerds is the best way to encourage widespread literacy?
Seems to me the only thing Wayne's "made" is at least thirty bucks, judging from the article.
That's where we disagree, then. If the Washington Times published a list of the top 25 stories that conservatives wanted to see with more airtime, that fact in itself would not make the stories interesting/irrelevant. Such a determination can only rest on the merit of an individual story, in my view.
And you seem to want so badly for my post to be wrong that you miss its point entirely. Good job, Anonymous Coward.
Good thinking! "The government has a history of doing bad things, so whatever bad thing I suggest must be true, and anyone who objects must be brainwashed and ignorant."
Let me try one: I posit that the U.S. government will soon throw sniff out all the drug users and throw them into camps. This is based on the following:
1. At the government's encouragement, drug screening is now widespread in private industry and schools.
2. The government has a substantiated history of collecting supposedly private information.
3. Halliburton received a contract to build detention camps in the U.S.
Obviously, these camps are part the "final solution" to the War on Drugs. You might want to say, "Perhaps there's another reason for building them, like preparations for mass deportation of illegal immigrants," but anyone who says this is just brainwashed, man, by the corpo-fascist thugs and their dastardly agents of deceit. Prove me wrong.
Fun as this is, I'm going to have to give it a rest. Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is exactly like arguing with a creationist: no understanding is possible in the presence of such different standards of evidence. Once the need to search for answers in empirical reality is disposed of, anything's possible. The appeal of having certain Truths, in the face of a world that rejects them, is undeniable and has formed the basis of most cults throughout history. (Christianity, for example, in the days when Christians were persecuted by harsher means than the removal of government-mandated prayer.) Far be it from me to screw with your personal religion, but if it'll make you feel better to reply to this post by once again asserting that a person you don't know is a helpless tool of forces that only those with your secret knowledge understand, go right ahead. It's still a relatively free country.
I think it's just wonderful that one can spin an entire story, without any substantiation, based solely on the well-known fact that the government is run by a bunch of shitheads. Let's follow this logic:
1. The government lies about everything.
2. Something happened.
3. Therefore, whatever the government says about that thing must be a lie.
Of course, the problem with using logical premises to make empirical determinations is that empirical reality doesn't lend itself to the generalizations of logic (statements using "all" or "everything," for example.)
But why let that stop you? If the existing physical evidence doesn't support your logical conclusions, just posit the non-existence of other evidence, more favorable to your conclusion, as support for your conclusion. That's the key to being a skillful conspiracy theorist.
Yet you shouldn't rely solely on logic to make your point. Don't forget a time-honored rhetorical device: inventing unwarranted (and inaccurate) assumptions about the beliefs of those who disagree with you. For example:
Good weed helps as well, for both writer and reader, and especially after midnight. When you need the motivation and paranoia required to type a page worth of non-sequiturs, or to appreciate reading it, nothing works better. So I hear.
I'm sure every journo entertains fantasies of being an ace investigative reporter - the couple I've had the pleasure of knowing certainly do - but the fact of the matter is that it's really hard to actually be that person. The entertainment-focused nature of the media limits the number of these positions available, while journalism students are a buck-a-dozen at many universities. As a result, most reporters aren't smart enough, ambitious enough, sociable enough, or some combination of the three to compete for the these top spots. (This isn't meant as a slight against them. It's the same situation that exists in professional sports: plenty of excellent athletes are simply not skilled enough to play at the top level of their sport, because that level consists of a few hundred guys, chosen from across the world or country.) Even those with sufficient talent may not have enough luck to exclusively catch a truly memorable or history-making story.
On the other hand, one can always get paid for celebrity trash. It's a shitty way to make a living, but its easier than "sticking to principle," if one considers not eating a difficulty. Besides, I have a hard time believing that some hacks really do enjoy their work.
I think you mean GySgt Hartmann. And besides, if serving in an actual war didn't "set me straight" by your definition, I somehow doubt that a pop culture movie character'll do the trick. Thanks for your interest, though, and good night.
No, most of us just want another overpriced peripheral for our iPods.
Just a hunch, but I'll bet most of your troll mods come from your sig.
It's always a tough choice: examine the substance of someone's argument and respond with your own substantive points, or ignore it completely and make an irrelevant comparison to an unrelated issue. Good job on choosing the Slashdot Way!
I'm sorry, but could you suggest an "unbiased" source? I'm just curious to see if you're enough of a simpleton to believe in such fairy tales.
I actually agree with you, 9/11 conspiracies are pretty laughable. I must have missed the entire list's focus on 9/11 conspiracies.
No, but that sort of asinine assumption is a great example of how some folks can let their political inclinations do their thinking. Good job!
No, they're nowhere near as picky about the source of their income.
Well, wrong again. Thanks for playing, you anonymous shit smear.I didn't realize that doing so would affect the individual validity/irrelevance of all the other selected stories. My bad; I keep forgetting that the presence of quantitative "balance" is the best indicator of truth. Perhaps I don't watch enough cable news.
Aww, and I was trying so hard to amuse you, as opposed to others who might have read your post and thought, "Wow, what an idiot you'd have to be thinking of /. as a "leftist" site, given its typical libertarian tone and the large number of posts critical of this particular article."
Good post, just had to fix a bit of your spelling.
Ah, then they must be full of shit. Everyone knows that you can't trust those people, so why bother to actually look into what they're reporting when it's easier to just make judgments based on political sentiment?
People who dissent against a war that is destroying America's military capability are treasonous hippies, but it's cool for Halliburton to actually enable a nuclear program conducted in the "Axis of Evil?"
Add "treason" to the list of words made meaningless by this corrupt administration and its enablers, along with "freedom," "strength," and "morality."
Satan.
See, isn't this easier than thinking?
That terribly stupid reason, assuming it's true, should be enough to disqualify any candidate.
In Soviet Russia, iPod bites you!
Don't they already teach this at the business schools that produce these jackasses? And do they honestly expect anyone else - say, productive members of society - to buy this line of bullshit?
I suppose working bliss is destined to escape you; I recommend finding a non-demanding job that affords ample leisure. This has been working for me for some time now. :)
All true, but I was referring specifically to prospective grad students in the humanities and "soft sciences."
Thanks for your story of real estate success, AC. But this conversation is taking place in 2007.
Why, because the grade inflation and confusion of entertainment with education that such "student feedback" has produced is something we need in primary and secondary education as well?
Student feedback on empirical questions (does the teacher show up on time, have adequate materials, show up stoned, etc.) is valuable. But considering that the majority of students in a given undergrad class (certainly first and second year classes) are interested in completing a grad requirements checklist as opposed to learning, student feedback as to a teachers's effectiveness is generally worthless. Administrators reliant on such foolishness can only gauge how the students feel about the teacher in question.
On top of that, one has to take market conditions into account. With that in consideration, I suggest that if you buy a house (in most areas) between now and this time next year (at least), you should probably not be trusted with a checkbook, let alone a mortgage, considering the inflated prices of housing that are still holding over from the housing bubble.