Haezed

I note that this thread started in 2004 and still the atrocities continue. What should be done?

If you are directing that to me, I was half serious and half poking fun. I'm sorry if you perceived this as trolling. I admit it was hard to get too far past a sentence which contends "...liberals, in large part, are motivated by a deep-seated emotional aversion to anything reminding them of 'fascism.'" I could seriously discuss a thesis that liberals are more adverse to authority, but fascism, one of the greatest evils of the last century? Let's start from the premise that we are all just as adverse anything that has a reasonable relationship to fascism. FWIW, conservatives view liberals as authoritarians who want to control our daily lives by using our own money as a carrot and a stick. Let's try another sentence: "Liberals hate dominators and exploiters of the weak." Why, then, are liberals not lauding GWB for digging Saddam out of his hole? Iraq may or may not work but this administration derailed a tyranical government and turned the tables on the dominators (Sunni) in favor of the weak (Shia). Liberals are not really happy about this. Conservatives hate governments that make people weak by feeding a sense of entitlement. I agree with the first half of the first sentence. The paranthetical is needlessly provocative so I'll ignore it in an attempt to meet you on the high road of discourse. I see a lot of group think from liberals and deference to conventional wisdom. They absolutely cannot entertain the possible notion that good might come out of Gulf War II. My sense is that liberals generally think they are absolutely right and GWB is absolutely wrong with very little grey to be had. This seems to contradict the previous premise. According the the previous contentions liberals should seek a balance here and recognize that all of these values have their own proper place in a leader. I certainly do not think conservatives demand less intelligence of their leaders.

OMG, I'm a liberal. That's me! Me again. That is SO me! I hate those guys too! I hate when we have to go to war. More me. I'm really close on this one. Me again! Oh, thank god. For a minute I thought I was a liberal. It is more important to me that a leader be principled with a steely eyed view of the world as it actually is than what he wishes it were in his intellectual dreamscape.

I think most people, including the Bush administration, recognize there is a problem with the phrase "war on terror."

I'm as concerned as anyone with the FIrst Amendment; i've simply not heard any evidence of government action in this regard.

Can someone please post a link to where government has acted in this flap? The worst I've seen linked on this board is for Rice to post her own personal opinion on a subject obviously outside of the purview of a secretary of state. Speaking against what someone else says is not censorship. It's debate.

I don't see how in any way, shape or form, free speech is implicated by this dynamic. In fact, it is free speech which is skewering Imus and, thankfully, rap music. Government isn't involved although you might be able to find a kook here and there that advocates government censorship. Imus is a big boy who is at the mercy of the free market place of ideas and popularity. I found his popularity inexplicable in the first place and if the masses turn against him, so what? That's just life in the big city. I've lost you here. No one says, that I know of, that we should not be able to debate abortion rights. There was some controversy in the application of RICO to certain actions but free speech is intact. There is no inconsistency at all in belatedly turning the lights on rap musics scummy underbelly. I doubt seriously legislation will be introduced which actually censors music. If that happens, I'd be shocked if it weren't overturned. Tipper spoke out against those years ago to no avail. I don't see anything happening here except a healthy debate.

I'm concerned about these laws but having kids am glad they exist. The thing that bothers me is that the rules are for life and could apply to a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old in some states or a guy who decides to whiz on a building. A couple buck naked in a public park in the ol' chevy doing the deed might be sexual offenders. Others could be just a case of mistaken identity. Not all of them are guilty and somehow it seems we need to reserve these kind of punishments for predators. Again, I'd err on the side of protecting kids and, to a large extent, I don't care too much about their plight. However, the fact that it NEVER ends even thirty years after committing any crime does seem unjust. Let's look forward to the day when we can implant biometrics in them and simply shut them down when they come within ten yards of a kid.

That's my hope. At least we saw the question posed to Snoop Dog and got to see his lame answer.

I suspect she's speaking as a black woman who overcame the odds to become one of the most powerful people on the planet. She didn't use her governmental position to get him fired; she merely exercised her right of free speech. That right doesn't just go in one direction.

I'm a big believer in the free market and I'm not going to call a waaambulance for a shock jock who loses gets fired for crossing a line. Having a big time radio show is about having an audience who have every right to be fickle and, if they feel like it, to say I'm not going to listen this schlock. Ultimately, he'll be okay if sponsors and viewers stick with him. If not, that's just the the free market in action. You'd think he's a victim in darfur the way some are standing up for him. I view it as life in the big city. No argument here at all. Bitch can be used to describe a tough as nails female. That's not the context it's used in rap usually. Whore doesn't have any converse positive association. You assume Imus didn't know what nappy headed meant without any proof or even that claim being made by Imus that I've heard. No one is getting hung. He lost a high profile job that depends on the good will of the public. It's all about appealing to public taste and he blew it. I agree with your last sentence. We are more in agreement than you know. The black community has to get past Jackson & Sharpton and learn to discuss issues such as Rappers. When Bill Cosby stepped up to the plate they were right behind him. Five miles behind him. Shameful stuff.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't use the cameras or that their was an inevitable slippery slope in play. At least in America, it's going to take a massive 9/11 type blow or worse to get acceptance of genuinely invasive monitoring. No, not with the cameras. That was never my point. The technology gives me the willies but I would like to have it available when my daughter becomes a teenager.

No, his point was: The first question is whether we are going to allow 24/7 "public" monitoring. THe second question is what this will mean exactly, e.g. what is "public" and what data is going to be gathered, e.g. heart rate, bio data, in addition to location? The third question is what will be done with the information. The final question will be what is done to safeguard the information. All of these are important questions and I'm not ready to leap past #1 and #2. How far off would it be from a tech POV to put a GPS device on everyone and have a computer program monitor locations and look for patterns? I don't see why that presents a huge technical problem given that the NSA can already shift through massive amounts of financial and other data and companies like Axiom. As far back as 1999, Axiom "has a database combining public and consumer information that covers 95% of American households."

Independent of the substantive and procedural laws, the notion of people as data points to be analyzed by exponentionally increasing computing power (if Moore's law keeps chugging away), is a very scary thought. I'm not wild about the notion of an imbedded chip that tracks when I leave my house and where I go and then sends a police car to pick me up if I spend too much time at the pub.

So it's okay to call a single mother trying to raise kids in a ghetto a whore, whether or not she is, but not if they can play basketball and go to college? I put a lot of blame, most of the blame, for this on rappers who have debased black women for profit. And when someone says, "ho" they mean.... well, whore I guess. Sure doesn't sound as if Snoopie dog means it in a good way. I'm having fun watch you streeeetch to make this point. Not all black culture but much of what passes for entertainment does and I hold them responsible as well. I've not seen women with any self respect call themselves bitches or whores. Can you give me the positive context? Pathetic is a word we can agree on. I really don't think Imus is enjoying this moment of inflated fame. Not in the least. I take him at his word that he is humiliated and would like it to pass. The Rutger's, FWIW, is getting far more positive attention than do most women's teams that win the title. The best player in college ball this year was never on the cover of any major sporting magazine. I agree that we should not live constantly in fear of touching the third rail of alleged rascism. Actually, my initial post was trying to say I thought Rosie's intentional comments are worse than Imus. OTOH, there is meat on this particularly nasty bone. I think Imus should appologize as he has and, eventually, we should move on. I hope this gives us all a chance to understand we shouldn't call women bitches or whores. Blatent misogyny is not humerous. What people? Anyone who finds Imus' comment objectionable? "Absolutely nothing" is another huge stretch, and these ladies' moment in the sun is not diminished by those who came to their defense. That's silly. I think they come out of it elevated and, I hope, some good will come from it.

Which raises the separate issue of punishment. Personally, I want most non-violent criminals hooked to an electronic tether and working to pay off their crime. The three strikes laws of many states are god-awful.

Very well said. Mega dittos and all that. With respect to the notion that things haven't changed raised in the post to which you respond, it is true that terrorists have always existed. Hoplites used to face off on open fields, crash into each other, resolve the conflict and go home to hang their armor on their mantles before going out to farm. That sort of all out direct "fair" war came to an end at the conclusion of the Peloponnesian war. Extensive use of terrorism has always been around, including the targetting of Civilians in Vietnam (by the VC) and, arguably, by night time bombing by the allies in WWII. What has changed is that we are in an period of technological growth unprecedented in this planet's 4 billion year history that is giving increasing destructive power to terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists trained, in part with Microsoft flight simulator. A $50 off the shelf program helped these terrorists train how to fly a plane into an actual target. That single fact is scarier to me than about anything else. What will $50 programs enable terrorists to accomplish in 2025 or 2050? Already with Google Earth, they can zoom into my back yard. We can't slow down the pace of technological growth. I think we are in for a wild and rough ride in this coming century.

I think nappy headed refers to the hair texture of black people. Yes, he was trying to be funny but good grief, it's like saying they were big lipped whores. I feel all too grown up and I don't think I'm too into myself. I'm probably the least PC person I know, but this did go beyond the pale. Michael Richards was trying to be funny too. I tend to agree with you about the 9/11 widows. They give me the creeps and I think Coulter did a service by calling them out. What? The Rutger's women didn't deserve to be trashed by Imus so you blame those who take Imus to task, which would include the Rutger's coach? Run that one by me again chief? FWIW, I agree with some of what you say. I actually think Rosie's statement is worse than an offhanded rascist comment by Imus. She actually believes that sh*t and I'd bet $500 the Arab media jumped all over what she said.

No one has proposed government intervention. At least I haven't.

You think we are not facing an enemy? If so, I find that pretty delusional. From your "definition" below, you appear to think an enemy can be defined but your definition goes no where. FWIW, just because something is hard to define, doesn't mean it can't exist. Apparently, you don't like me honestly answering the questions. We will identify the terrorists with difficulty but not being an expert of counter-terrorism, I can't give you a twelve point plan. Besides experts and politicians with "plans" to solve this problem are a dime a dozen. Get real. Sorry not to sugar coat it for you. We won't know when this war ends. No one will sign an armistice. These are silly questions that go no where. You say my answers are weak? That... (*seems Panglos monitoring civility levels and stops mid sentence*) is ... rich. The entire outlining exercise you prpose goes no where. Let's be honest here. The questions are posed to point to one conclusion no matter how many times they are repeated or no matter how you try to delve into some obtuse definitional answer. The questions are posed to suggest we are not in a "war" because (i) it's hard to define the enemy, (ii) we will have a hard time finding and engaging the enemy, (iii) we may not know when the "war" is over and (iv) no one will sign an armitice to the "war." I stipulate to all of this but find it irrelevant. I'm just not very interested to much how we define what we have on our hands, whether it is called the war against terror, the war against Islamofascists, the hunting of Al Qeada or anything else. One thing this isn't - a criminal justice exercise. If we approach this with a pre-9/11 mentality, we're going to lose more than 3,000 or so lives, a few towers and a chunk of the pentagon. We're going to lose a city and our liberty along with it sometime in the next 20 years. These points I've made repeatedly and they've been ignored with a comeback of the litany of the four questions which go no where I haven't already been. Tiresome stuff.

Yes, Maher. My bad. The few times I listened to him I found him to be unfunny and, really, pretty stupid notwithstanding an occassional pithy phrase. His latest, "don't question my patriotism, traitor" is simultaneously dishonest and unfunny. O'Donnell is pretty easy to dismiss until she starts spouting 9/11 conspiracy theories. That puts her in a dangeous category. Imus' comments were particularly hurtful to young women at the pinnacle of something they'd worked for all of their lives. Words matter.

I'm sorry if I failed to give the answer you wanted to hear. Seriously, this issue is not going to yield to simple answers or questions like, "when is a train due." Terrorists and legal systems don't operate on schedules. Your questions are rhetorical but if you really want an answer (and you REALLY appear to want an answer), here goes: 1.Who are you fighting? Al Qaeda and their ilk for now. 2.How will you identify them? With difficulty but hopefully before they crash planes into our sky scrapers or nuke a city. 3.How will you know it's over? We won't. Scary isn't it? 4.Who will sign the Armistice? No one.

I just think you are wrong. What may be true for Stern, is not true for Rush, O'Donnell, Imus, etc. Rush, for example, has a hugely loyal fan base. Bill Mayer makes me want to vomit. I don't find him funny or intellectually interesting or honest, yet I don't have the slightest desire to watch the train wreck. Sure, they raise their public profile by shocking people but their bread and butter is selling people what they want to hear.

Australia? Seriously, off the air, I suppose. MSNBC suspended IMUS for two weeks and O'Donnell is still alive and spewing. Hearing 9/11 conspiracy theories in a mainstream media is more than a little disconcerting. I'm sure you find calling young women who competed at the highest level of collegiate athletics in a near Ivy league school "nappy headed whores" to be a little more than "thoughtless." (What is nappy headed, anyway? I assume it has to do with the texture of hair?) There is more here this time than mere faux pas. I also think you very much underestimate the power of this ilk. You shouldn't assume that just because you are smart enough to think for yourself that everyone does.There are millions who tune into Rush every single work day to get fed want they want to hear. Same goes for Mayer, Coulter, O'Donnell, etc. Anne Coulter is a special case. She is half self parody these days. This is wishful thinking on your part. These people's influence, which is greater than a Russert or a Stephanopoulos is not to be underestimated.

Should they go? Imus' defense is that he is a good person and is very sorry for calling young women who made it to the peak of intercollegiate women's basketball, "nappy headed hos." Rosie appears to have no defense but can we expect an insane person without a lawyer to know to plead insanity?