Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

http://news.bostonherald.com/interna...articleid=1133

• Interesting numerical ties between the Madrid attacks and 9-11
  By Associated Press
  Friday, March 12, 2004
  
  In comparing the Madrid bombings to the 9-11 terrorist attacks in the United States, there are some interesting numerical ties.
  
  There were 911 days in-between the terror attacks in Madrid and Sept. 11, 2001 - or 9-11 as it has become known - when al-Qaida-backed terrorists slammed planes into the Pentagon, a field in Pennsylvania and the World Trade Center towers in New York, destroying them.
  
  The Madrid bombings - which happened on 3-11 - also came 2-1/2 years to the day after the 9-11 attacks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Less interesting to whom and why. That was the point of all this.

I said "we all."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I said "we all."

Yes, I know, but I don't think that is true and I think that there is a break down along gender lines. Believe me, I wish this weren't true.

I think women as a group have played a role in preventing progress on women's equality issues. Although she isn't the most egregious example. I always think of Melanie Griffiths when I think of this topic. She was so willing to portray herself as a young, dumb sex toy when she was young enough to do that. She gladly took roles that were little more than excuses for her to have sex on camera. Now that she is older and isn't offered those roles, she complains about how movies portray women and laments the lack of roles for women over 40.

Of course, she neglects to realize her own contribution to the stereotype and also neglects to realize that at any time, women could write screenplays and produce films that cater to women over 40. Women like her could set up their own production companies either with their own money or by getting investors. But instead, they just complain about it.

Why don't Melanie and Meryl and Sharon and all the other actresses over 40 get together and do something about it? The films might not interest young males or even young females, but there is a segment of the audience that would be interested in movies that had women over the age of 40 as the lead actresses.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
If Stern has regularly been letting callers get away with that kind of stuff without bleeping it (when they have the ability to do so), then Stern is complicit in this. And personally, I think it is a good thing that these fines have put fear into CC.

Stern can do that on the E! show if he likes, so it is not like he cannot let that message get through to the public.

But why bleep it? Is it indecent? Is it a 7 dirty word?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree that some courses, business associations comes to mind, are more vocational in nature. But those courses that are less intellectual do tend to be the ones focused on business.

Please. We business lawyers view non business lawyers in the same way that you (and I) view arts majors.* Business lawyers need to know all the non-business areas, plus finance, accounting, and substantive business law, as well as have a general business sense because we are often called upon to give business advice in addition to legal advice. I could practice most non-business areas of law in my sleep.

*I was pre-med until it interferred to much with my partying. Was forced to switch to arts degree to save my GPA. It was a complete joke compared to the hard sciences.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But why bleep it? Is it indecent? Is it a 7 dirty word?

Is the indecency standard limited to sex and bodily functions? Maybe it is, I am not an expert on this topic.

I would say it is a particularly offensive racial slur and that is a category that can legitimately be regulated on the public airwaves. I think you can identify the words that fall into that category rather readily. Spic, kike, nigger, gook, that kind of stuff. Now I know that guido and dego are offensive to italians, but so far in our society, those words aren't offensive in the same way that the racial slurs against oppressed (or previously oppressed) minorities are. Maybe some day, but not today.

No doubt that part of the reason that the slurs against minorities are so offensive is because they have been discriminated against in the past and arguably are still discriminated against. The italians haven't been an oppressed group in this society as best I can remember. The Irish were at one time, but not so today, and I think when the discrimination is gone, that does make the slurs less offensive.

I joyfully await the day when we can all jokingly refer to each other by these racial slurs and it won't be offensive because the discrimination/oppression of the past is a distant memory. I think that day will come eventually since we all are mixing our genes with each other so much that eventually, there will just be one race. We will all have a slightly yellowish latte colored skin someday.

I guess I just don't think it is all that hard to figure out what things are just too offensive to broadcast. If the FCC starts going after mildly offensive speech, then I will worry. But so far, they rarely enforce these standards, when they do it is for outrageous statements, and even then, it has little effect.

Maybe these huge fines will turn the FCC into a heavy handed oppressor of free speech. If that ends up happening, I and many others like me will call on our legislatures to reign it in. But for now, the majority of people seem to have gotten more than a bit fed up by all of this and are happy to see the FCC take a tougher stand.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please. We business lawyers view non business lawyers in the same way that you (and I) view arts majors.* Business lawyers need to know all the non-business areas, plus finance, accounting, and substantive business law, as well as have a general business sense because we are often called upon to give business advice in addition to legal advice. I could practice most non-business areas of law in my sleep.

I am not saying that business lawyers don't need to know the law. And certain areas of business law, like anti-trust, are more conceptually difficult to master than say torts or real property.

I just think from an educational perspective (not about practicing law once you finish), classes like con law and even torts are more cerebral when you are taught not just the law, but the history of the law, the policy considerations, whether this system is better than other systems, should it be changed, etc. In my experience, the business association classes and UCC classes were more focused on teaching you how to practice the law, which is a more vocational and less intellectual bent.

I am not sure how you define non-business law. Do you include intellectual property as business or non-business law?

Originally posted by sgtclub
*I was pre-med until it interferred to much with my partying. Was forced to switch to arts degree to save my GPA. It was a complete joke compared to the hard sciences.

I know many people who dropped out of a science curriculum and got much better grades when they did. I have never once seen it happen the other way around. I am sure that when BRC dropped physics her GPA went up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I know many people who dropped out of a science curriculum and got much better grades when they did. I have never once seen it happen the other way around. I am sure that when BRC dropped physics her GPA went up.

At the school I went to, the introductory science classes were murderous because the science faculty did not want to have people who weren't going to major in the subjects taking upper level courses. And there were the pre-meds, a cutthroat bunch. The humanities faculty were happy to have people from other majors in their upper level courses, and saw no need to weed people out. Grades are an artifact of the system that produces them, not a measure of intrinsic merit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

It's nice to see Republicans in Congress jumping on board the "Bush lies" bandwagon.

• Q You met with the administration yesterday. Did they say they would support the target number [for highway funding]?
  
  Speaker Hastert. We need to go forward, we need to go to conference with the Senate, and then if they want to be involved in that conference, they certainly will be able to be involved in it.
  
  Q But did they say they would sign?
  
  Speaker Hastert. They didn't make a commitment.
  
  Q Did they say they would veto it?
  
  Speaker Hastert. They didn't say they would veto it.
  
  Q Is that with the President or with the people?
  
  Speaker Hastert. That is with the President. I don't deal with his people anymore.
  
  .....
  
  Q Sir, what did you mean by that last comment: That was with the President; I don't deal with his people anymore?
  
  Speaker Hastert. Well, we weren't getting straight numbers from his people, and they changed their mind in the middle of the process. So we are going to do what we feel we need to do.
  
  Q Just on this issue or on —
  
  Speaker Hastert. On this issue.
  
  Q Or in general?
  
  Speaker Hastert. On this issue.
  
  Q Sir —
  
  Q What kind of numbers were you getting from them?
  
  Speaker Hastert. Different numbers.
  
  Q Different from?
  
  Speaker Hastert. Where they added up.

linky

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I just think from an educational perspective (not about practicing law once you finish), classes like con law and even torts are more cerebral when you are taught not just the law, but the history of the law, the policy considerations, whether this system is better than other systems, should it be changed, etc. In my experience, the business association classes and UCC classes were more focused on teaching you how to practice the law, which is a more vocational and less intellectual bent.

You are right if you mean that business law classes do not ask such questions as "what is the nature of law" like a jurisprudence class would ask or "how should a government be organized, like in Con law. But neither does, e.g., torts. Do ou not think that in, for example, a securities regulation class you are not taught the history, the policy considerations, etc.? Any securities law class that is not teaching those facets is doing students a disservice because that teaching is extremely useful in practice, especially in dealings with the SEC.

Originally posted by Not Me I am not sure how you define non-business law. Do you include intellectual property as business or non-business law?

I consider IP law as business. The P is a dead giveaway IMHO.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Is the indecency standard limited to sex and bodily functions? Maybe it is, I am not an expert on this topic.

Nigger is not a 7 dirty word. It is an extremely offensive word, and one I would not use (other than in a discussion such as this), but that is what the tuner or remote control is for.

Originally posted by Not Me I would say it is a particularly offensive racial slur and that is a category that can legitimately be regulated on the public airwaves. I think you can identify the words that fall into that category rather readily. Spic, kike, nigger, gook, that kind of stuff. Now I know that guido and dego are offensive to italians, but so far in our society, those words aren't offensive in the same way that the racial slurs against oppressed (or previously oppressed) minorities are. Maybe some day, but not today.

And I would say that you have just proved the point I have been trying to make. In order to make a determination, you, much like the FCC, are a making judgment call. My guess is that many would find guido and other slang terms offensive as well. You have essentially proposed an "I know it when I see/hear it standard" which provides no certainty and is entirely discretionary. I would think someone with your beliefs would not want to leave such discretionary power in the hands of a government bureaucrat.

Originally posted by Not Me The italians haven't been an oppressed group in this society as best I can remember.

You should ask your law school for a refund because the history portions of your education have failed you.

Originally posted by Not Me I guess I just don't think it is all that hard to figure out what things are just too offensive to broadcast. If the FCC starts going after mildly offensive speech, then I will worry. But so far, they rarely enforce these standards, when they do it is for outrageous statements, and even then, it has little effect.

It's hard for me to figure out, and I am far more educated than the average broadcaster. If we could draw a clear and definitive line, I wouldn't worry so much (although I still would not be in favor of it). But we can't, so the slippery slope is a real threat.

[Not Me]

I don't know what the weather is like in the rest of the country but it is freaking fantastic in CA right now. I had the most awesome dinner outside and walk afterward tonight. It was beautiful. I wore a sleeveless top. In March. In northern CA.

Yahoo!!!!!! Global warming is AWESOME!!!!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
*I have resisted avatar reference (oh, a lizard this or that)

Look, Hank, I've told you - it's not a cult, it's a Collective. I did not ask to be Leader; it was the Collective's collective will. If that makes you completely uncomfortable, gather whatever rival faction you can muster and form a rival collective. Competition is always healthy. I enjoy a worthy Nemesis. But you will no longer be a Herald of the Coming World Superstate. Leave you badge and keys at the door. And don't even think of stealing office supplies.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And I would say that you have just proved the point I have been trying to make. In order to make a determination, you, much like the FCC, are a making judgment call. My guess is that many would find guido and other slang terms offensive as well. You have essentially proposed an "I know it when I see/hear it standard" which provides no certainty and is entirely discretionary. I would think someone with your beliefs would not want to leave such discretionary power in the hands of a government bureaucrat.

I hear you. But judgment calls are what executive agencies are all about and I do think that there is certainty in the determination. Even Howard Stern knows the line. He just doesn't like that the line exists.

Even you know the line. You know it is more offensive to use some words than to use others. And you know exactly which words. A 10 year old might not, but an adult knows. You really do know it when you hear it.

I do see your point about the government regulation and being libertarian-inclined. But I am not an extremist libertarian so I am not against all government regulation. For instance, environmental regulation. I am not for regulations that don't make any sense, but without regulating industries in terms of the environmental damage that they cause, they would wreak havoc on the environment.

I don't get all worked up about the government regulating content on the public airwaves. There are many other vehicles to get a message out nowadays. The corporations that lease the public airwaves don't have an unfettered right to free speech on the public airwaves. The goverment doesn't even have to lease the spectrum at all if it is not in the public interest to do so. I think that the government regulating the public airwaves in 1960, when there was no cable and no internet, was far more of a threat to free speech than regulating them today.

Originally posted by sgtclub
You should ask your law school for a refund because the history portions of your education have failed you.

I wasn't taught general American history in law school. Were you? History of the legal system and the history of various legal subjects, yes, that I was taught. But general American history I was not taught in law school.

While I do recall from high school and undergrad being taught about the signs "No Irish Need Apply" that businesses would display, I don't remember being taught about widespread Italian discrimination. Not saying it didn't happen at all, and I am sure that every new immigrant group experienced some assimilation problems. But I don't think the italians were discriminated against as a group in a way that compares to what has happened to other groups. For instance, when we were fighting Mussolini's army in WWII, I don't remember any italian internment camps being set up.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
I wore a sleeveless top.

This, I somehow believe.