The Nightwatch Program

[Dr Maturin]

The Federal Communications Commission on Friday quietly canned its controversial study of American newsrooms, a week after putting the project on hold.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/28/fcc-quietly-kills-controversial-newsroom-study/

[Dr Maturin]

What's going on with our country? These stories, while deeply, deeply disturbing, are not a shock. Warning signals were present in the adminstration's first term.

America, THIS is what you elected.

America, THIS is what you deserve.

In both cases, you are either actively involved or by neglect.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/22/doj-invoked-espionage-act-in-calling-fox-news-reporter-criminal-co-conspirator/?intcmp=trending

http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2013/05/21/lawmakers-get-first-crack-at-irs-commissioner-who-was-in-charge-when-tea-party/

[Doom Shepherd]

I think Saudi Arabia has these guys that do pretty much the same thing, except that they insure that the women are dressed properly, instead of talking properly.

Well, Churchill DID say that the next generation of fascists would call themselves anti-fascists...

[*Starstuff*]

The scariest thing for me about this is that the univerity officials actually went ahead and proudly announced this "project". It is one thing to do this quietly, behind peoples backs, but to go out in the open and actually suggest this is the right thing to do ... *shakes head*

[Dr Maturin]

It's very cold up north...

It would be hilarious if it were not so chilling: Queen's University will hire six "facilitators" who will listen in on student conversations, vigilant against incorrect speech. Officially, says the University's website, these incognito "intergroup facilitators," will "respond to, stimulate and invite engagement across difference and tensions that arise among and between groups" in residences. They'll pay special attention to "incidents of bias, prejudice ... harassment and discrimination" and they'll be good at all this, because they will "receive intensive and specialized training in the areas of social-justice theory."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazett...3-04fb0130daa4

After this program was reported by the National Post and others, it proved somewhat more controversial than anticipated, and Patrick Deane, the school's academic vice-president, was forced to e-mail out a hasty letter of explanation to alumni. Mr. Deane tells the old boys (and girls) of Queen's that he literally cannot imagine why plainclothes university-paid snoops skulking around campus, listening in on student conversations would remind anybody (as it reminded the editorial board of one Toronto newspaper) of the KGB.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...t-queen-s.aspx

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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]

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.