The Nightwatch Program

[Jan]

You think it's shamful that both sides of an arguement be heard? That broadcasters be held to an obligation to ensure that?

Why? It's not as if the biases won't still be there, obviously, but at least it would ensure that people were aware that choices in viewpoints exist that might just possibly be equally valid.

Jan

[SLerman]

The "anti-blogger" section of the bill was discussed quite heavily on Slashdot. Most people who were glad the section had been voted out had absolutely no clue what the actual text of the bill said. It had absolutely nothing to do with restricting an individual's right to express their opinions. All it did was require people that were paid more than $25k in a quarter (three months) to write a specific opinion and encourage people to contact their congresscritters about a topic and have that writing read by more than 500 people to register as lobbyists. Nobody that actually understood the bill had any objection to professional paid shills being required to openly admit that they are indeed professional paid shills.

[Dr Maturin]

You think it's shamful that both sides of an arguement be heard? That broadcasters be held to an obligation to ensure that?

Why? It's not as if the biases won't still be there, obviously, but at least it would ensure that people were aware that choices in viewpoints exist that might just possibly be equally valid.

It's nothing more than a targeting reticle aimed squarely at conservative talk radio. Take that out and you get the left-leaning network TV news, liberal rags from all over the country, CNN, MSNBC, etc. It targets ONE medium.

Oh well, there are still the blogs...doh!

The "anti-blogger" section of the bill was discussed quite heavily on Slashdot. Most people who were glad the section had been voted out had absolutely no clue what the actual text of the bill said. It had absolutely nothing to do with restricting an individual's right to express their opinions. All it did was require people that were paid more than $25k in a quarter (three months) to write a specific opinion and encourage people to contact their congresscritters about a topic and have that writing read by more than 500 people to register as lobbyists. Nobody that actually understood the bill had any objection to professional paid shills being required to openly admit that they are indeed professional paid shills.

Yeah, people are too dumb to understand a simple concept. It's wrong in theory and immoral in practice. The ACLU -- no bastion of conservatism -- knows it's wrong. Is this the only thing that the ACLU is wrong about in the liberal world?

I love how liberals can justify anything that their parties' elected officials do, no matter how dubious. These are both clear cut free speech violations and thank God they corrected the latter.

[Jan]

Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. It's always Conservatives VS Liberals or vice-versa these days, isn't it? Yawn. Heaven forbid anybody being assumed to have actually made up their own minds, right?

As long as there's an adversarial stance, there's no possibility of meaningful dialogue about any issues. The words "Get over it" come to mind.

Jan

[SLerman]

Yeah, people are too dumb to understand a simple concept. It's wrong in theory and immoral in practice.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You think it's immoral for the government to force people that get paid by large corporations and lobbying firms to write "opinion pieces" and influence Congress (a.k.a. lobbyists) to openly state that they are indeed lobbyists? That's quite interesting. I'm not a big fan of government interference in people's personal lives, but I'm sorry, anything that promotes honesty and transparency in politics (insert "honest politician" joke here) trumps whatever ultra-libertarian views someone may have.

[Dr Maturin]

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You think it's immoral for the government to force people that get paid by large corporations and lobbying firms to write "opinion pieces" and influence Congress (a.k.a. lobbyists) to openly state that they are indeed lobbyists?

Yep. Cute how this has been happening for YEARS in nice little publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc., but only now is it a problem. They aren't lobbyists. They're writers who get paid, and that isn't any of our business. Now, if it were a case where a senator or congressman was found to be directly funneling money to a columnist or blogger, then yeah, you'd have a case against the senator or congressman. But not the writer.

I mean, we've had state secrets revealed in newspapers and there wasn't a penalty.

That's quite interesting. I'm not a big fan of government interference in people's personal lives, but I'm sorry, anything that promotes honesty and transparency in politics (insert "honest politician" joke here) trumps whatever ultra-libertarian views someone may have.

Sorry, this is America. We don't register people to write what they want (and despite their pay from "large corporations" [which is, again, none of our business], they'd nonetheless be writing about the same topics and opinions anyways) because that is the first step towards authoritarianism. It's a bad idea and a recipe for "slippery slope casserole."

You want transparency in politics? Let's start tracking things such as farm subsidies and find out WHY certain politicians from both parties are for them. But don't mess with someone's free speech.

[Jan]

Yep. Cute how this has been happening for YEARS in nice little publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc., but only now is it a problem. They aren't lobbyists. They're writers who get paid, and that isn't any of our business. Now, if it were a case where a senator or congressman was found to be directly funneling money to a columnist or blogger, then yeah, you'd have a case against the senator or congressman. But not the writer.

Excellent point. See what can happen when you drop the rhetoric and make the effort to express a point? You're right, columnists and the like should NOT be registered as lobbyists. It'd be easy to say that a determination of who's paying them could/should be used but that would be wrong, too.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

You're right, columnists and the like should NOT be registered as lobbyists. It'd be easy to say that a determination of who's paying them could/should be used but that would be wrong, too.

If any government official were paying them, obviously you'd have some legal issues with said official. Also, the publishing house in question should take action against the writer based on business ethics. Up to and including termination.

[SLerman]

Cute how this has been happening for YEARS in nice little publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc., but only now is it a problem.

I'd want to see an actual example of that (given that I never read the editorial pages of any of those newspapers) before believing that statement. And if it is true, I'd be in favor of them being treated as corporate shills just the same. The political system is already at the point where the only voices are those of corporations, special interest groups, and the rare individual that has a few million dollars to spend, and a large part of the general public probably doesn't realize it. Nowhere in the legislation are these people silenced, nor would I support such legislation. If people want to accept money to be corporate shills, that's their choice. My problem is when these corporate shills can lie about who they really are. The political system would be much better off without astroturfing groups like the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth".

[Dr Maturin]

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

10:26 AM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007

KING5.com Staff and Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html

[AaronB]

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washin....546c6a4d.html

This initiative forgets that 1 in 7 couples suffer from infertility. Of course it's a stupid idea and doesn't help get people that would be on the fence about the issue on their side.

[Radhil]

It's a stupid idea because it's a publicity ploy, not a real action.

On the flip side, I like the logic of it. A stupid arguement on a stupid ban when codified into law turns into state harassment for the masses, not just the minorities. I like the illumination. Pity no one will see it that way.

EDIT - P.S. - Are we even in the right thread here?

[AaronB]

It's a stupid idea because it's a publicity ploy, not a real action.

On the flip side, I like the logic of it. A stupid arguement on a stupid ban when codified into law turns into state harassment for the masses, not just the minorities. I like the illumination. Pity no one will see it that way.

EDIT - P.S. - Are we even in the right thread here?

But you're wrong. Those of us that struggle with infertility are the minority.

[Radhil]

But you're wrong. Those of us that struggle with infertility are the minority.

*scratches head* You're taking a press stunt seriously. Why?

[AaronB]

*scratches head* You're taking a press stunt seriously. Why?

No, I'm not. But this is a subject that is very close to home and may have let my emotions get the better of me.