|
Post by Onjel on Sept 16, 2009 14:36:18 GMT -5
I know, not an original opener, but I can't improve on perfection. ;D BUFFY: New semester, new classes. Whole new vistas of knowledge to be confused and intimidated by.
TARA: I think this one's gonna be kind of fun. Greek Art's gonna touch on so many things -- mythology, history, philosophy...
BUFFY: The professor spit too much when he talked. It was like being at Sea World. The first five rows will get wet.
TARA: That was just, you know, um, enthusiasm.
BUFFY: It seemed very much like saliva.
TARA: We'll sit farther back next time This was an historic political year, no doubt about it. The next four years will be just as historically significant so, we're going to continue our not-so-experimental idea of having a place to talk about everything and anything you want.
Welcome to the Open Topic Discussion- Part 5! So, go to it. All are welcome to talk here about pretty much whatever you want. Religion, politics, philosophy... you name it!
But, before we go any further, here's the deal:While we have relaxed the rules about religion and politics only in this forum, we're still adhering to the "no bashing" rules. There's a little black button up above if you need a refresher on those.
Please keep any disagreements potentially created here from carrying over to the other threads. This forum may be suspended if we feel it becomes detrimental to the harmony of the S'cubies.
Technopagans do reserve the right to reprimand, apply strikes and modify/delete posts if posters don't take the rules seriously.
With that said, we'd also like to address the fact that techs will probably frequently be involved in the discourse. While they will strive to adhere to the rules themselves, it is quite possible that, at some point, the regular members may feel they have stepped out of bounds. If you feel a board admin is out of line, please report this to the other Techs and/or your CoW members. And that's pretty much it! Follow those guidelines and we should all be good. Oh, and if you don't wanna get wet, you might want to sit a bit to the back. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Sept 16, 2009 14:43:46 GMT -5
Had to bring this over from the last thread because ya just gotta love the sartorial comedy at work. Thanks, Julia. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 16, 2009 16:29:33 GMT -5
Well, this is the most entertaining court finding ever:
"Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so." Heh. I want to make her write it on a blackboard, over and over.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Sept 16, 2009 16:36:22 GMT -5
Well, this is the most entertaining court finding ever: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so." Heh. I want to make her write it on a blackboard, over and over. While I completely agree that these people need to stfu, you are aware that this whole manufactured controversy can be traced to the actions of an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, right? Thank him for starting this whole bullshit mess. I, for one, am sick of it.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 16, 2009 16:55:44 GMT -5
Well, this is the most entertaining court finding ever: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so." Heh. I want to make her write it on a blackboard, over and over. While I completely agree that these people need to stfu, you are aware that this whole manufactured controversy can be traced to the actions of an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, right? Thank him for starting this whole bullshit mess. I, for one, am sick of it. Yeah, but how's it relevant who it started with? Hilary disavowed the entire "controversy" from the beginning (and you KNOW if the Clintons couldn't use it, it doesn't exist to be used), while there are actual "mainstream" Republicans in CONGRESS of all places who keep feeding the Birther fire. They not only don't say they know it isn't true - they keep encouraging it. To quote David Brin from last week's blog: The real trouble with conservativism in America right now is that the sane conservatives are being drowned out (and even driven away) by the hysterical crazies who seem to be driving the bus. It's bizarre to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Sept 16, 2009 17:08:41 GMT -5
While I completely agree that these people need to stfu, you are aware that this whole manufactured controversy can be traced to the actions of an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, right? Thank him for starting this whole bullshit mess. I, for one, am sick of it. Yeah, but how's it relevant who it started with? Hilary disavowed the entire "controversy" from the beginning (and you KNOW if the Clintons couldn't use it, it doesn't exist to be used), while there are actual "mainstream" Republicans in CONGRESS of all places who keep feeding the Birther fire. They not only don't say they know it isn't true - they keep encouraging it. To quote David Brin from last week's blog: The real trouble with conservativism in America right now is that the sane conservatives are being drowned out (and even driven away) by the hysterical crazies who seem to be driving the bus. It's bizarre to watch. I disagree. The problem I have is that conservatives and constitutionalists (that would be me) are being painted with the same brush as the lunatic fringe. There are many, many more people like me than there are the weirdos. I have real differences of opinion on the proper constitutional role of the federal government, but Homeland Security sees me as a "right wing extremist". I most certainly not one of those. This kind of broad brush mentality is what is frustrating. It's akin to labeling everyone who disagrees with Congress and the President as racist. Blatantly pandering and divisive. I do think it's important where this whole birther crap started, because it's instigator is still supporting and is actively involved in the "movement". Whether it would make any difference if he pulled out now or not, I can't say. It would go a ways to deflating their position, I think. I will agree with you that if there was a real issue the Clintons would have exploited it. I trust them to use available dirt to their advantage like I trust no one else. It's one of the things I think is their greatest shared trait. ;D Just one more thing. I do not consider most Republicans to be very conservative-no matter what they consider themselves to be.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 16, 2009 17:23:28 GMT -5
Had to bring this over from the last thread because ya just gotta love the sartorial comedy at work. Thanks, Julia. ;D It's an image that brings endless delight. Especially the socks. Julia, gotta love 'em
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Sept 16, 2009 19:25:21 GMT -5
Had to bring this over from the last thread because ya just gotta love the sartorial comedy at work. <snip> Thanks, Julia. ;D That actually makes him look a bit like my dad. That's kind of scary.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 16, 2009 22:58:38 GMT -5
Well, this is the most entertaining court finding ever: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so." Heh. I want to make her write it on a blackboard, over and over. (Full Impulse Power) Julia, she keeps using that word "constitutional." I do not think that is what it means.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Sept 16, 2009 23:12:53 GMT -5
But, seriously, folks: Orly Taitz and the birthers are not conservatives in any meaningful definition of the word, and the fact that drama-queens like Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck are giving that movement positive attention is no evidence that they're being accepted by real conservatives.
What is inescapable, though, is that wingnuttery is not just harmful to the Republican party, or the conservative movement, but to the country as a whole- it makes productive political process of any sort impossible, and debases the democratic process.
Julia, not to mention making Thanksgiving dinner-table conversation this year a real trickie proposition
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 17, 2009 9:27:32 GMT -5
Yeah, but how's it relevant who it started with? Hilary disavowed the entire "controversy" from the beginning (and you KNOW if the Clintons couldn't use it, it doesn't exist to be used), while there are actual "mainstream" Republicans in CONGRESS of all places who keep feeding the Birther fire. They not only don't say they know it isn't true - they keep encouraging it. To quote David Brin from last week's blog: The real trouble with conservativism in America right now is that the sane conservatives are being drowned out (and even driven away) by the hysterical crazies who seem to be driving the bus. It's bizarre to watch. I disagree. The problem I have is that conservatives and constitutionalists (that would be me) are being painted with the same brush as the lunatic fringe. There are many, many more people like me than there are the weirdos. I have real differences of opinion on the proper constitutional role of the federal government, but Homeland Security sees me as a "right wing extremist". I most certainly not one of those. This kind of broad brush mentality is what is frustrating. It's akin to labeling everyone who disagrees with Congress and the President as racist. Blatantly pandering and divisive. I do think it's important where this whole birther crap started, because it's instigator is still supporting and is actively involved in the "movement". Whether it would make any difference if he pulled out now or not, I can't say. It would go a ways to deflating their position, I think. I will agree with you that if there was a real issue the Clintons would have exploited it. I trust them to use available dirt to their advantage like I trust no one else. It's one of the things I think is their greatest shared trait. ;D Just one more thing. I do not consider most Republicans to be very conservative-no matter what they consider themselves to be. I think it makes a difference where it started in the sense that it helps establish what this is all really about: extreme partisanism, and playing dirty politics. It's not about constitutionalism or conservatism or Clinton's or Obama's stance on any important issue. Wing-nuts of all religious or political persuasions exist and they will always exist. There is no faction free of wing-nuts. Perhaps, like actual wing-nuts, they help support the overall structure somehow? Since they exist (IMO) in all cases, can we conclude their existence is required, somehow? Who knows. But, ultimately, when it comes to having to listen to this mess, my first instinct is to blame the media for giving this stupidity any attention - except I do believe they are serving their public. It's nutty, but it sells - people like to read it and see it and hear about it . .. they like to discuss it and grouse about it, etc. They must be picking up the newspaper or magazine, turning on the interview or news show, clicking the link , etc.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 17, 2009 9:42:20 GMT -5
I disagree. The problem I have is that conservatives and constitutionalists (that would be me) are being painted with the same brush as the lunatic fringe. There are many, many more people like me than there are the weirdos. I have real differences of opinion on the proper constitutional role of the federal government, but Homeland Security sees me as a "right wing extremist". I most certainly not one of those. This kind of broad brush mentality is what is frustrating. It's akin to labeling everyone who disagrees with Congress and the President as racist. Blatantly pandering and divisive. I do think it's important where this whole birther crap started, because it's instigator is still supporting and is actively involved in the "movement". Whether it would make any difference if he pulled out now or not, I can't say. It would go a ways to deflating their position, I think. I will agree with you that if there was a real issue the Clintons would have exploited it. I trust them to use available dirt to their advantage like I trust no one else. It's one of the things I think is their greatest shared trait. ;D Just one more thing. I do not consider most Republicans to be very conservative-no matter what they consider themselves to be. I think it makes a difference where it started in the sense that it helps establish what this is all really about: extreme partisanism, and playing dirty politics. It's not about constitutionalism or conservatism or Clinton's or Obama's stance on any important issue. Wing-nuts of all religious or political persuasions exist and they will always exist. There is no faction free of wing-nuts. Perhaps, like actual wing-nuts, they help support the overall structure somehow? Since they exist (IMO) in all cases, can we conclude their existence is required, somehow? Who knows. But, ultimately, when it comes to having to listen to this mess, my first instinct is to blame the media for giving this stupidity any attention - except I do believe they are serving their public. It's nutty, but it sells - people like to read it and see it and hear about it . .. they like to discuss it and grouse about it, etc. They must be picking up the newspaper or magazine, turning on the interview or news show, clicking the link , etc. I"m pretty inclined to go with the red, and fairly skeptical about the green. I understand that media is a BUSINESS and that is where is goes off the track. Because there are now so many stations on 24/7 and all must compete for viewers/ratings many go round chasing the worst and furthest out stories "because that's what the public wants to see." But should they be giving us what we want/deserve? Some of these stories are only "news" because other news outlets keep doing stories on how other news outlets are covering it. If you get my meaning. It's just so difficult to get real information in depth on real topics.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 17, 2009 12:31:46 GMT -5
I think it makes a difference where it started in the sense that it helps establish what this is all really about: extreme partisanism, and playing dirty politics. It's not about constitutionalism or conservatism or Clinton's or Obama's stance on any important issue. Wing-nuts of all religious or political persuasions exist and they will always exist. There is no faction free of wing-nuts. Perhaps, like actual wing-nuts, they help support the overall structure somehow? Since they exist (IMO) in all cases, can we conclude their existence is required, somehow? Who knows. But, ultimately, when it comes to having to listen to this mess, my first instinct is to blame the media for giving this stupidity any attention - except I do believe they are serving their public. It's nutty, but it sells - people like to read it and see it and hear about it . .. they like to discuss it and grouse about it, etc. They must be picking up the newspaper or magazine, turning on the interview or news show, clicking the link , etc. I"m pretty inclined to go with the red, and fairly skeptical about the green. I understand that media is a BUSINESS and that is where is goes off the track. Because there are now so many stations on 24/7 and all must compete for viewers/ratings many go round chasing the worst and furthest out stories "because that's what the public wants to see." But should they be giving us what we want/deserve? Some of these stories are only "news" because other news outlets keep doing stories on how other news outlets are covering it. If you get my meaning. It's just so difficult to get real information in depth on real topics. I am not following - apologies if I am misreading you, but it doesn't sound like you're skeptical that the media is responding to public demand, it reads more like you're . . . lamenting it? Or are you saying that demand for sensational or "nutty" stories is artificially created - artifically create a buzz, then exploit that? But even then, you have to have complicit public. My basic thought is that if something is hard to find in our economy (in this case in-depth info on real topics), it's either because it is hard to produce, or not in much demand, or both. There are some exceptions to this - I mean, when an actual need (not just a desire) is artificially created or maintained (some would say this is happening with crude-oil), but I don't see an analogy to that, here. Well, I need to do more thinkin' on this, but must get back to the grindstone.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 17, 2009 12:46:52 GMT -5
I"m pretty inclined to go with the red, and fairly skeptical about the green. I understand that media is a BUSINESS and that is where is goes off the track. Because there are now so many stations on 24/7 and all must compete for viewers/ratings many go round chasing the worst and furthest out stories "because that's what the public wants to see." But should they be giving us what we want/deserve? Some of these stories are only "news" because other news outlets keep doing stories on how other news outlets are covering it. If you get my meaning. It's just so difficult to get real information in depth on real topics. I am not following - apologies if I am misreading you, but it doesn't sound like you're skeptical that the media is responding to public demand, it reads more like you're . . . lamenting it? Or are you saying that demand for sensational or "nutty" stories is artificially created - artifically create a buzz, then exploit that? But even then, you have to have complicit public. My basic thought is that if something is hard to find in our economy (in this case in-depth info on real topics), it's either because it is hard to produce, or not in much demand, or both. There are some exceptions to this - I mean, when an actual need (not just a desire) is artificially created or maintained (some would say this is happening with crude-oil), but I don't see an analogy to that, here. Well, I need to do more thinkin' on this, but must get back to the grindstone. Lamenting yes. Not skeptical that the media is responding to public demand, but skeptical that they are serving the public by providing us with what we (or at least clearly a majority of the masses) are demanding. The rest is pretty much just rant. And you are correct, public TV and public radio exist but are far down the ratings scales. I just wish that there were more outlets offering a somewhat more moderate, reasoned, thoughtful analysis of important issues (like health insurance, immigration, big government, separation of church and state, etc) so that if you are skipping around the dial you would at least occasionally be randomly exposed to something other than 2 extremes covering he said/ she said mud-fights of the moment and celebrity death or bad behavior or hour after hour after hour of sensational murder and kidnapping stories. I'm not saying those things aren't news, I'd just like some balance. [Currently I'm on a real media downer.] The best example I can think of is how taken I am with "NovaNow" which is sort of NovaLite. It's actual science but clearly done by folks who understand the MTV generation and want to entertain as well as inform. Or the CBS Sunday morning show, but with more depth. Or Sixty Minutes type shows offered by on a nightly basis, not just once a week for 30 episodes a year. Or maybe I'm just being curmudgeonly.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 17, 2009 13:32:49 GMT -5
I am not following - apologies if I am misreading you, but it doesn't sound like you're skeptical that the media is responding to public demand, it reads more like you're . . . lamenting it? Or are you saying that demand for sensational or "nutty" stories is artificially created - artifically create a buzz, then exploit that? But even then, you have to have complicit public. My basic thought is that if something is hard to find in our economy (in this case in-depth info on real topics), it's either because it is hard to produce, or not in much demand, or both. There are some exceptions to this - I mean, when an actual need (not just a desire) is artificially created or maintained (some would say this is happening with crude-oil), but I don't see an analogy to that, here. Well, I need to do more thinkin' on this, but must get back to the grindstone. Lamenting yes. Not skeptical that the media is responding to public demand, but skeptical that they are serving the public by providing us with what we (or at least clearly a majority of the masses) are demanding. The rest is pretty much just rant. And you are correct, public TV and public radio exist but are far down the ratings scales. I just wish that there were more outlets offering a somewhat more moderate, reasoned, thoughtful analysis of important issues (like health insurance, immigration, big government, separation of church and state, etc) so that if you are skipping around the dial you would at least occasionally be randomly exposed to something other than 2 extremes covering he said/ she said mud-fights of the moment and celebrity death or bad behavior or hour after hour after hour of sensational murder and kidnapping stories. I'm not saying those things aren't news, I'd just like some balance. [Currently I'm on a real media downer.] The best example I can think of is how taken I am with "NovaNow" which is sort of NovaLite. It's actual science but clearly done by folks who understand the MTV generation and want to entertain as well as inform. Or the CBS Sunday morning show, but with more depth. Or Sixty Minutes type shows offered by on a nightly basis, not just once a week for 30 episodes a year. Or maybe I'm just being curmudgeonly. Ah, I see. And I agree, as I'm pretty much permanently down on the mainstream media. I don't know I'd say you were being curmudgeonly, though I might say you are being a dreamer. Not that the dream couldn't come true, someday . . . you know, long after our bones are dust. I do have a belief, based on nothing but imcomplete and unprofessional observation, that human society is slowly (slowly slowly) maturing and moving forward in its attitudes. But I also believe there is only so far that can go - I mean, human nature and perfection being as far apart as they are.
|
|