Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
That was a good article (and I find Howard Stern utterly repellent). My favorite quote from the article:

• After all, what the hell good is free speech if you can't speak freely about swamp ass?

Howard can talk about swamp ass all he wants on his cable show or on satellite radio. The first amendment protects that.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can't read his mind, obviously, but I really don't think so. He seems to CITE to the stuff, as somehow providing raw info, or at least reasoned and believable analysis. I just put mine out there to show that at least someone was as loony as I am.

I have no problem with that, on either side of the aisle. I'm interested in reading things that people find persuasive.

But I will point out that your own post made no mention of the "loony as I am" subtext that you had in mind. Whereas Ty's prefaced the Saletan article with this: "I responded to this last night, but William Saletan has a piece in Slate today that captures what's disturbing about Bush's "steady convictions"."

Perhaps if he had added "to me" after disturbing it would have been more clearly what you describe but I just don't feel it was so far off.

[Not Me]

What exactly is the difference between the FBI singling out Arabs in flight schools for investigations as possible terrorists and Arab cab drivers refusing to pick up black passengers as a safety precaution? I mean, other than the FBI is the government and an Arab cab driver is licensed by the government.

I am trying to articulate why the former is OK and the latter is not OK but am not having much luck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can't read his mind, obviously, but I really don't think so. He seems to CITE to the stuff, as somehow providing raw info, or at least reasoned and believable analysis. I just put mine out there to show that at least someone was as loony as I am.

I sometimes cite to blogs because they contain facts, often taken from more mainstream media. I sometimes quote them because they put things well, or have interesting analysis. Discerning which of the two I'm doing is usually a fairly simple matter of reading what I say.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
There is a good story by Dan Savage on Salon today about the persecution of Howard Stern by the FCC and Clear Channel. http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/200...age/index.html

I have no love for Howard, but I agree with Mr. Savage's analysis.

Finally someone agrees with me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
2. Note to Ty, citing a blog is not evidence in support of your argument. Because some guy with a website says something doesn't mean it is true. You seem confused about that.

I know that you are constitutionally incapable of actually reading things in the materials that the rest of us link to, but if you look at one of those blog posts, you will find that they often include facts which are quoted from or cited to other sources.

Still waiting for you to post something intelligible about the "wall" you were discussing yesterday. Although it's plain that you had no idea what you were talking about last night, I've given you plenty of time to try to educate yourself.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I sometimes cite to blogs because they contain facts, often taken from more mainstream media.

Can you isolate the facts and just post that portion when you are citing them for facts? You will copy and paste huge sections of an article/blog or just provide a link. There may be a fact buried in there somewhere but it is asking too much to expect us to read such a huge volume of information to find this fact that you say is in there. When you do that kind of stuff, I just pass on your posts. Maybe there is something for me to learn, but I do work and do read other boards besides this one.

When I post an article, I only post a small portion of it to show you what I am citing. Then I provide the link for you to go to the article to read in its entirety if you need more context.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I sometimes quote them because they put things well, or have interesting analysis. Discerning which of the two I'm doing is usually a fairly simple matter of reading what I say.

No, it is not, especially if you are citing an article/blog for the facts that they purportedly contain.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I know that you are constitutionally incapable of actually reading things in the materials that the rest of us link to, but if you look at one of those blog posts, you will find that they often include facts which are quoted from or cited to other sources.

See my post above for my thoughts on how easy it is to find the facts buried in 42 pages of blogs/articles.

You post many links to articles/blog and copy and paste large portions of text. In a day, I work, respond to posts, read others' posts, read other boards, joke around with my colleagues, read/respond to e-mail, file my nails, etc. When you just provide a link to a long article or copy and paste huge amounts of text supposedly containing a fact somewhere, it is too much for you to expect me to wade through.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Still waiting for you to post something about the "wall"

Busy working on my taxes right now. Will respond more later.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sorry my posts are so taxing for you. (eta: Thanks for 'splaining that it's not that I'm not citing facts, it's that it's too much work for you to find them.)

Fucking AMT.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
What exactly is the difference between the FBI singling out Arabs in flight schools for investigations as possible terrorists and Arab cab drivers refusing to pick up black passengers as a safety precaution? I mean, other than the FBI is the government and an Arab cab driver is licensed by the government.

I am trying to articulate why the former is OK and the latter is not OK but am not having much luck.

Perhaps because, while black and hispanic males may commit a larger percentage of violent crime than whites (I don't even know if that's true, but just assume it is for these purposes), I am sure the percentage of blacks/hispanics committing violent crime doesn't come close to 99.9%, which is approximately the percentage of terrorist acts committed by Islamics. (Again, I'm guessing on the 99.9% figure, but the only reason I didn't make it 100% was because of the T.McVeigh dude.)

And I suppose I could understand a cab driver who has been the victim of a crime to be reluctant to pick up a person with a thug-like appearance (note, I am NOT saying that a "thug-like appearance" is the exclusive province of black and hispanic males -- I'll bet teenagers with mohawks and numerous piercings have cab-hailing difficulties as well), I cannot imagine what possible excuse a cab driver has not to pick up a black or hispanic guy (or anyone else for that matter, but it's generally the black/hispanic who get this treatment -- at least in NYC) who doesn't look menacing (and that is routinely what happens -- black guy in a suit with a briefcase getting passed by).

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Not Me
After 9/11, sure. Pre-9/11, the PC fuckers would have made the comparison to DWB stops by the highway patrol and been outraged.

My original post responded to Shape Shifter's suggestion that after 9/11, the effect of U.S. actions concerning Mulsims was too 'costly' even though (according to SS) they averted further attacks. On the issue of whether there are any non-Muslims/Arabs who object to profiling *after* 9/11... I think there are definitely individuals and groups out there besides Muslims that, even after 9/11, speak out activley against measures that could be considered "profiling" of Muslims. I know the ACLU has spoken out against many of these measures. And it also asked for laws completely prohibiting any profiling based on "race, religion, national origian....." I'm certain that Dingell of Michigan (not a Muslim even though a lot of his constituents are) also spoke out against Arab/Muslim profiling after 9/11.

[Atticus Grinch]

Result when "president bush news conference" was searched recently.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop


Fucking AMT.

Great conspiracy. I'm sure the budget office couldn't tell you this in, say, 1998, either. In fact, I read an article making almost exactly the same point, except in a non-partisan way (i.e., high-tax states are likely to advocate AMT reform, regardless of party) 3 years ago.

I think the AMT sucks. At least now. But, in five years or so it will become cheaper to repeal the regular income tax instead of the AMT, which gives me sizable hope for something closer to a flat tax, or at least one that's a hell of a lot simpler.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
My original post responded to Shape Shifter's suggestion that after 9/11, the effect of U.S. actions concerning Mulsims was too 'costly' even though (according to SS) they averted further attacks. On the issue of whether there are any non-Muslims/Arabs who object to profiling *after* 9/11... I think there are definitely individuals and groups out there besides Muslims that, even after 9/11, speak out activley against measures that could be considered "profiling" of Muslims. I know the ACLU has spoken out against many of these measures. And it also asked for laws completely prohibiting any profiling based on "race, religion, national origian....." I'm certain that Dingell of Michigan (not a Muslim even though a lot of his constituents are) also spoke out against Arab/Muslim profiling after 9/11.

What does "racial profiling" mean, anyway? Everyone agrees that it's a bad idea for the FBI to omit someone's race from the description of a suspect in the interest of some kind of misguided political correctness. I think we also all agree that the FBI shouldn't be searching people just because they're Arab. As a practical matter, however, it appears that law enforcement has often done this sort of thing. (E.g., pulling people over for DWB -- driving while black.) (Somebody will say this has never been a problem -- if so, whatever, I'm not interested in having that empirical argument right now.) In the middle, there's a big gray area, no?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Great conspiracy. I'm sure the budget office couldn't tell you this in, say, 1998, either. In fact, I read an article making almost exactly the same point, except in a non-partisan way (i.e., high-tax states are likely to advocate AMT reform, regardless of party) 3 years ago.

I think the AMT sucks. At least now. But, in five years or so it will become cheaper to repeal the regular income tax instead of the AMT, which gives me sizable hope for something closer to a flat tax, or at least one that's a hell of a lot simpler.

I don't understand why -- and that article doesn't explain why -- more people are paying the AMT this year than last year. Any idea?