ParanoiA

At which point does the hitting with a club and dragging into the cave come in? I always forget.

After the restraining order has been issued...

You've missed my point. It's not how you mix news and editorials. It's how you separate the people who write the news (and publish the opinions) from the people who write their paychecks. Le Monde grants tenure so journalists can be free to pursue any story, or write any editorial, without fear of being fired for having the wrong opinion or troubling the wrong people. Television networks can hardly afford to do so when they're at the mercy of audience ratings and advertisers. Does Fox News have a policy to let presenters and journalists be isolated from management?

Well I do get your point, but I think you're putting a bit much stock into policy. Does stated policy matter over substative results? I don't know their policy, but I do know that Fox news went out of its way to marginalize Ron Paul (Libertarian-Republican) during the presidential primaries, using the same subtle tactics we've accused of the liberal press - without a doubt an agenda driven method to protect the establishment from they perceive as weirdos and quacks. Yet, John Stossel, Judge Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck are all libertarian commentary "weirdos and quacks" on Fox's network.

They don't have much in common at all with the religio-conservative bias of the network, and when they make little promo appearances on the staple conservative shows on Fox, they're generally bickering and disagreeing with each other. I'll never forget one of the first exchanges between O'reilly and Stossel over drug legalization.

So, they do appear to offer counter opinions. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with policies that insulate news folk from management, but I'd think that the Glenn Beck controversies, losing sponsors and so forth would give us a clue. It doesn't appear management cares what they say.

Maybe, yet again, folks are missing the distinction because they're still looking for the liberal side, as if there's only 2. I don't see much liberalism on Fox, but I also don't see exclusive conservatism either.

Glenn Beck defends Shirley Sherrod?

The woman never guessed that she would unite Glenn Beck and the NAACP, but he has spoke out in support of her. Even though the woman had been told when she was forced to resign that she would be "on Glenn Beck Tonight", she never dreamed he would say "She should not have been fired or forced to resign." The zany host even went as far as to say she should get her job back, or even be promoted.

It is kind of surprising to see him be reasonable. And I do enjoy this headline "Who was the first to jump to Sherrods defense, the White House? NAACP? no it was GLENN BECK"

I still think Glenn Beck has synthesized theatrics and commentary so much that it has very little value. And his religio politics is creepy, to say the least. But ever now and then, he manages to be acceptable.

You guys are just taking all the fun out of this.

Genecks, dude, don't listen to them. She's totally playing chess with you man. She could be psycho. Psycho's make great temporary lovers, but you risk "blowback", and I'm not talking the good kind either..

You should leave your binder under your desk and see if she takes the bait. And then shadow her for hours like she did you, and then be 'available' when she steps outside with your binder. This will earn her respect for you because she'll know she's met her match. She's likely to drop the act and jump in your arms right there. Trust me man...

Oh, give me a break. Yeah... It's no longer worth posting here. You're a mod, for Thor's sake.

I don't understand this. What is he doing wrong? The mods are locked in a bitter battle and both are showing a scope of respect that you and I are incapable of. I think if that were you and I, we'd already have locked this baby...

I said that we know he did not, because he sued the police, and won. It was established at THAT TRIAL that his confession was coerced.

I'm not seeing this in that article. I've read it twice...well once, and then re-scanned it just now. Maybe I missed it. Could you quote the part of the article that tells us he sued the police and won?

Aside from that, I'm not compelled to value any change in tactics by anything presented in the article, other than video taping interrogations. Like war, there is no way to avoid innocent casualties here. Those same interrogation tactics, like exploiting mental deficiencies and brow beating the parents, work very well on guilty people.

But video taping these sessions could be just the trick to keep everyone legitimate in the process. No doubt it would be exploited by the defense, taking advantage of the jury's lack of experience with interrogation techniques, but it still seems like the right way to go.

All that said, I just can't imagine dealing with the death of your child and then having to be separated from your family, at a time you need them the most, while people scream at you and torture you with pictures...that's just unimaginably cruel. But I also see no way around it. It's even more unimaginably cruel to murder your child, and we know people do it.

Check out this fact-checking site I found, just for Fox! "We watch FOX so you don't have to." http://www.newshounds.us/

Well there goes that. That's not a fact checking site unless you think "fact checking" means someone else's interpretation of political events. Rachell Maddow pretends Jessie Helms was fighting against the Racial Quota Law because a black man took a white man's job - despite the repeated appeals in the very ad she's fraudulently misrepresenting that states he's fighting against the notion of a quota based on race. It merely stars a white man - but I guess that's "fact checking"?

That's not fact checking, that's their political view and rhetorical puke. People read and watch that crap and believe it. And you're pointing fingers at Fox news?

This is a line that just isn't supposed to be crossed, making their own news out of fiction

I agree. Rachael Maddog and CNN, or whatever corporate information business she's paid by, should be ashamed of themselves for the fictional racism she's peddling. Imagine how many people are duped by this garbage.

I didn't even get to the second link...

Here's an actual fact checking site.... www.factcheck.org

Of course. But I think there's a big difference between bias in what you report -- say, the Times neglecting to report something negative about someone they like -- and bias in the facts you make up. A tabloid often contains rumors, but a news source "of record" at least tries to tell the truth, even when it's only the truth that supports their position.

Actually, it sounds like you're driving a wedge between bias and lying. If facts are made up, then they're lies. And I would think that would affect the "news of record". And I thought the points you made above were well done. I was curiously waiting for Pangloss to respond because I'm very interested and attracted to his logic on this, but despite all appearances I'm learning more than I'm contributing here.

I wasn't kidding, how do you find an unbiased source of information? You? Me? Who is truly objective?

At the risk of further missing the point of the thread...there is no unbiased source of information. There never was.

It's impossible for the human mind to be truly objective. As an old forum poster used to say, we are isolated subjects in an objective world. It's a sliding scale with spongy calibration. What is objective to you, is blatantly subjective to me.

And that's not the measure for "news of record". We've always had some sort of "news of record", and they've always been biased. Further, they've always had an agenda. Who doesn't? Bias doesn't have anything to do with the ability to be the "news of record".

I find it really hard to see how watching a Hollywood movie can inform us of ANYTHING useful on the subject of police interrogation. IMO socio-political policy should NEVER be informed by entertainment, even at the most superficial, background level.

 

My two bits anway.

I never meant for my little movie suggestion to be taken so seriously as a socio-political policy device. It was tailored specifically for rigney. He's an old fella that's had a hard time of it here at SFN on the get-go and I was just trying to connect with the dude on a looser, easy going level.

The one function that art provides, that is valuable to philosophical inquiry, is the ability to invoke empathy. Art, while it can be conceptually complex or intellectually challenging, is at its core an emotional medium. The ability to sympathize and understand how someone can be brought to confess to something they didn't do, is a decent mission for an art piece.

I've never suggested a hollywood film piece in any of my arguments before, nor any music influences, even though I spend the bulk of my life immersed in it. That should say something about how I apply art and entertainment to socio-political policy.

Hmm, maybe so. I'm at home now and my eFidgeting is quite responsive. Thank goodness...

Evidently it is the news of record for some in this administration. Yesterday, Shirley Sherod was fired from the USDA because she was told (Im paraphrasing)"They said I was going to be on Glen Beck tonight and they wanted me to resign". She said she pulled over to the side of the road and gave her resignation. All this over an edited tape from 25 years ago that was supposed to be aired on Fox later in the day.

 

As the dust begins to settle, the context of the full video removes most of the racist implication. There have been apologies issued to her today and the last I heard she has been offered a new position.

Too bad she isn't bitter like me. I'd love to read that she told them to go pound sand in their ass; that she won't work for people that won't at least stand up for her until the facts come out. There was no reason for her to have to resign so quickly - that was crap. Seriously, I read something similar - like the second phone call. That's awfully spineless. And she showed a peculiar form of class to comply too.

But as was said earlier...Fox news didn't fire her. And from what I gather, they didn't fan any flames either.

It's hard to see how.

Not to the OP, but to mine and rigney's exchange.

Well that's weird, I'm using IE 7.0, here at work, but I just had to click that link:

Your User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; ATT; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; MS-RTC LM 8; ATT; ATT)

Mozilla?

Anyway, it's not a terrible issue or anything. Just something I've noticed that I just thought was odd. I figured if I'm scrolling, clicking inactive areas and highlighting text - or as I like to call it, eFidgeting - then there would be no back and forth messaging going on in order to experience a delay or whatever. I guess there's more to it than that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but SFN runs on the principle of rule by a minority.

Oddly enough, my libertarian sensibilities are not at all offended by this minority ruling class of SFN. Probably because that same minority seems to be doing all the heavy lifting around here. Thanks for the hard work, Cap'n and company.

I would like to mention something weird I've noticed though. When I'm browsing, reading posts and such, if I highlight some text the page becomes unresponsive for several seconds, and any scrolling happens like a delayed effect. In general it does have this weird delayed feeling using the site.

I will say though, I didn't vote for that SFN logo - but it looks damn good. It's grown on me already.

But it's very unlikely that an innocent, or even a naieve person would confess to a crime they did not commit, no matter the interrogation, unless in a dungeon or on a wrack.

But we know it does happen. It's a phenomenon that can't be denied, yet seems impossible from our inexperienced perspective (presuming you've never spent hours being interrogated for a horrible crime).

Do yourself a favor and go rent the movie "Under Suspicion" (2000) with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman. The acting and writing is superb and it's one of the best movies period, even though most of it takes place in an interrogation room. In addition it's relevant to this exchange...

The Miranda Rights law has made sure the "POOR BABY SYNDROME" stays intact. It's far to lucrative in our society to make it much easier convicting a pedestrian of jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk than convicting a psychopath for murder, and I suppose that is the way it should be. But we have too many criminals walking the street today as free men because some slick attorney with no moral compass of their own, has turned our justice system on its ear. Yes, on rare occasions an innocent person has been convicted of crimes that in a few instances has even led to their being put to death. But it's the ten thousand to one bad guys whot don't get sentenced, that bother me!! Miranda Rights were perhaps meant as a check of doing injustice to innocent people, but this law has become a joke.

It really hasn't though. It's become a joke that people don't exercise their Miranda rights to the point of almost non-existence. Think about all of the times you've talked with police officers in your life, and if you review you'll discover you were never required to talk with any of them, nor without an attorney. No one is, ever. In fact, you can just sit there and be prosecuted from start to finish without saying a word (well, you might have to say a word or two in court I suppose...)

The point is most people don't exercise these rights at all, until things get really serious and they've already done damage to themselves by previous interviews with law enforcement.

We established our justice system with the idea that we'd rather 10 guilty people go free than to falsely imprison one innocent person. It is shameful that we have murdered innocent people counter to that end. I very much appreciate our justice system and consider it among the best in the world. When a murderer goes free, it's not a shortcoming of the justice system, it's a shortcoming of those working in the justice system. If we don't have evidence against someone, how is it the justice system's fault? If we lose the murder weapon, how is it the system's fault? These are shortcomings of men, not of our design.

Money doesn't get people free either - fancy high priced lawyers don't get you free, rather the ability to negotiate the justice system for maximum benefit is how you "get free". I've heard this sentiment a thousand times...so and so gets a pricey attorney and gets off free - and it's BS. Buying talent doesn't auto-magically get you out of jail. If you're caught on video murdering someone, you're going down. No fancy lawyer is going to free you from this. Money is not magical. It's only a terrific motivator for talented people.

We have more dangerous people walking the street from prison overcrowding than from unsuccessful prosecution. Everytime you jump up and down when a pot smoker or prostitute goes to jail, you might settle in and consider who we have to let go to make room for them? (Hint: it isn't the non-violent criminals that are released either....)

Reconsider your laws. Reconsider what you are willing to put people in jail for. Maybe come up with something a bit more reasonable. Here's a thought...how about leaving people to enjoy their liberty on their own terms, and maybe just jail them when they fail to leave other people alone to enjoy theirs? So like...people who smoke pot or sell their bodies for sex or scientific discovery don't go to jail just because we don't agree. In other words, maybe if we didn't criminalize everything that doesn't fit into our whimsical "preferred behavior" societal engineering design, we'd have more room for people who really do need to be in a freaking jail cell.

I pay very little attention to politics, from what I have seen FOX news gets rapped on a lot, thereby leading me to the conclusion that this is political bias?

 

So, why choose fox? Why not cnn or nbc? Do you watch fox or nbc or cnn or none? If you don't watch FOX than this seems to be merely a political statement against the news station.

 

He chose Fox because they are the only news outlet that overtly compliments the conservative agenda and associated phobias, which is necessary for his hypothesis. The subject matter might be political, but the purpose is not. This would be akin to a psychological hypothesis involving chocolate's effect on the brain - while the subject matter might be edible, it's most certainly a scientific purpose. (speaking of which, I'd be happy to participate in any study involving chocolate.. )

And do not attack with words or I will report, I do not wish for an argument so please enlighten me to your viewpoint rather than attacking.

Forgive him lord, he knows not what he asks...

Except, I don't watch CNN either, nor did I bring them up, nor is it at all relevant to my post. What's your point, exactly?

What is the "relevance" of you watching CNN? You said a new organization should be grounded in reality and I said that if we held everyone to that standard, that Fox news wouldn't have competition. And then I used CNN as the object of ridicule. How does my reply have anything at all to do with what you watch? Maybe you should think it through before all the "relevant" retorts you like to toss about so much.

You replied to Pangloss's lengthy, carefully crafted OP, complete with bullet points of evidence and well supported reason, with a half assed petulant remark and you expected to be taken seriously? You think that's an appropriate response to such a well formulated origination post for a thread? That really was your intelligent response?

Sorry, I missed all that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and considered your post a "yeah well f**k you too" sourpuss response. But if you're all about "relevance" and parsing the detail of your content, then apparently you're really serious about that post. So, by all means, please continue. I can't wait for the second sentence...

Again, not what I said. I'm trying to establish a subtle but important point here, and those of you bringing up bias are causing a distraction, presumably because you don't like the point I'm making. I object to this.

I think I helped spoil the broth with my initial post on bias. Sorry. I knew that has been, and would continue to be the point of objection, conflated with accusations of fraud so that bias becomes the motive and lies become the crime and thus "illegitimate".

I know I've seen and dealt with fairly liberal bias in news since I was a child, although I didn't know that's what it was until I got older and learned about the various ideologies and affiliations. But throughout that time, it never invalidated the news or their role in the process. I've always viewed the media somewhat hostily, and I still do, even more than ever before, but I never labeled them illegitimate. Even when they spin things to fit in their little world, they still do us the service of "news of record".

I'm just not buying the holier than thou act these jokers are selling. I'm not buying the appeals to objectivity nor the insistance that they sell truth - all BS. They sell facts wrapped up in opinion pieces. They're hoping you won't know the difference.

Why does my right not to see your genitals flopping about in public supersede your right to display them? Why have photo id cards or video surveillance?

To your first question, honestly I don't know. I don't see how people make exceptions to freedom and liberty because they're more offended by genitals than exposed warts, pimples, liver spots - and the other dozen nasty treats people don't cover up on their bodies.

Photo ID cards would be good for indentifying people when they choose to be indentified - like partially removing a Burqa to prove the facial photo matches. Video Surveillance is useful for folks who don't cover up unique identifiers - like tatoos, birth marks, or faces.

I'll admit that I do this with nudity, but not with this issue. I would prefer to see less of most people. I just see the need to be able to identify people in public. It is a legitimate public safety concern. I would think banks, schools and any business or roads with video surveillance would require it, so might as well deal with the problem head on.

It's only a problem for those who built and designed their systems on a purely voluntary behavior (exposing one's face) and now wish to act all surprised that some would not wish to duplicate that voluntary behavior and now want us all to pretend like it's such a foregone conclusion that all societies require exposed faces with baseless assertions of public safety. Bottom line is law enforcement has always depended on the fairly universal reality that everyone exposes the most obviously unique indentifier about them - their face. Because of this investment, folks extending their clothing rights to their faces creates a problem for law enforcement - the state - not the people themselves.

To put this back on the people to alter their behavior is precisely why people like me hate the federal central government so damn much - to flippantly dismiss other's choices because the great, benevolent federal government can't be bothered. If the great statists didn't think of it or didn't plan for it, then the people are to do without. That's the federalist's answer. That's the answer we'll get on this too when it comes to the states.

People love tyranny here in the states. They're all charged up over themselves and their little opinions they think are so special. I hope I'm alive to watch them all choke.

Great post Pangloss and very well supported. I don't disagree with your points.

An overly simplistic summary is that mainstream news is evolving and old worn out news organizations that still believe in the tired idea of "objective" journalism are no longer the "news of record". They were never objective, and FNC just rubs that in their face each and every day. This false appeal to objectivity has thoroughly twisted the minds of liberals and democrats such that they say things like "What liberal bias?" after watching CNN or MSNBC.

Doesn't it have to be a valid representation of reality to be called news?

Well, if we hold them to that standard then FNC won't have any competition. We're nice enough to tolerate the antics of CNN for now...

Without pondering much over the question whether Fox News falls into the definition of "news", don't you think that the bias shown by FNC has at least quantitative difference compared to other similar networks. And even if it such does not existed, don't you see such bias as a problem in general?

No and no. It has the appearance of quantitative difference because it's far more overtly presented. The Cronkite Museums still peddling news stories are operating under the assumption that they're providing "objective" journalism. One wonders if they share an intellectual room with "separate-but-equal", bearing such antiquated mysticism.

I think overt bias is ultimately a far more healthy diet for news junkies than unrealistic models of objective perfection that has never been produced by a human mind. The first case corrupts in the foreground while the latter case currupts in the background.

Of course, FNC still claims "fair and balanced"...some things never change.

To me, the best evidence for god is that women will have anything to do with men. If I were you, I would appreciate the gift of a female admirer that, apparently, didn't require the usual jumps through hoops, humiliation experiments and false fronts to attain.

From what you've described, she kind of knows you. Yet she still possibly likes you. I wouldn't push my luck much further. Ask her out and win her heart before she finds out about your really disgusting habits.

I suspect as the tea party continues to evolve it will shed its fleas, which at the moment are the conservative oblivions that are too spaced out on god and their precious "traditional" values and skewed constitutional exceptions to even notice they're the obnoxious neighbor that doesn't know when it's time to leave the party and go home.

Then, the tea party will return more to the grass roots, big government federalist road block I believe they originally started out as before the conservative oblivions branded it and took over.

I'm basing this partly on the smear campaign to make tea partiers about racism since their threat of freedom and liberty still sell so well with the unconditioned population of the country. This will work against GOP candidates that wish to align themselves with the tea party - they will run away as the spineless weasles that they are. Propaganda and political games work well on politicians.

Syria bans the burqa at university

 

Interesting.

 

Well, a ban does place limits on freedom, which already exist. I think it is a very reasonable limit to require some attire in public, but not completely hide your identity. One can express themselves politically and spiritually without being nude, covering themselves in a sheet or wearing pornographic or obscene language on their clothing. I'm sure some people would love to fornicate on a highway. So sorry to infringe on their freedoms, but we do live in a society.

A society that rationalizes denying one the right to wear a friggin towel or cloth over your face and actually expects to be taken seriously is a society unworthy of respect. This isn't violent animal sex in front of a children's school bus stop, this is clothing for crying out loud - more clothing, not less.

I know this is France, but forcing people to show their face in public? What is the function of this? Why does your right to readily identify them by facial signature trump their right to cover up their face? Why do you feel any of us have a right to see one another's face? I don't get this.

No, I think this is logic that works backward from your preference. You simply notice that 99.9% of all of the public shows their face and does not wish to cover it. So that has become common place and "normal" for you. The idea of anything, otherwise, simply lacks sensibility and undermines the processes you depend on and put in place that took advantage of that voluntary, universal choice of face exposure. So, you work backward to make believe you actually have a pragmatic reason, a functional appeal, in order to intervene and stop those few who don't behave so universally.

That's the problem with appeals to tradition, which is all this "identification" argument boils down to - they are functions of paradigm and boxed up thinking. Law abiding citizens don't need to be identified by examination of facial terrain. Why would they? And to require that law abiding citizens should alter their behavior because criminals will copy that behavior to cover up their illegal activities is short sighted and creates the short path to comedic and tyrannical legilslation. We don't ban clothes despite the drugs and weapons criminals hide in them.

What's next? Will shyness not be allowed? No weirdos anymore? Anybody who wears weird clothes that France thinks is holding them back as a "person" or some goofy social obligation they've deluded themselves into believing all of their citizens owe each other and more rights are edited for the precious majority?

It's sick. That's all there is to it. They should be ashamed of themselves. And that a joke like America notices it, ought to say more than anything else.

Looks like someone needs a sound princess

Link

That's awesome!

"I still haven't heard of men who say they want 'Oto-hime' in men's rooms," said Goto.

Uh, I want Oto-hime in men's restrooms here in the states. There, now it's official.

to be honest, i've never seen the point in the 'man laws' of bathroom etiquette. and besides, i thought the space rule only applied to urinals.

 

anyway, i don't really give a crap about them. i'll use whichever's free. it's not wanting to sit close to anyone, its just figuring that the other person taking a dump is adult enough to be able to handle the fact that other people need to take a dump/slash too.

 

man up and stop caring about it.

Ah ha!! So you're the guy! I knew there was something about you IA...

Also, please note that I said the middle stall(s) is for emergency use only - not to never be used (even though my subtitle suggests total exclusion...my bad). I think you can lend a bit of respect and choose a further stall when it's not necessary to share your purgative grunt skills with such intimate proximity to strangers.

Side note: my dad works in noise control. For a while now I've been nagging him to design the HushFlush, a silent toilet design that doesn't echo or amplify. He'd make a fortune.

Hell yeah. Great idea.

Of course, the other issue is "panting". Almost worse than all out grunting are the people who get winded taking a dump. 'Uh..why are you out of breath, dude?'

Who would have thought a bowel movement could raise someone's heart rate?