|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 27, 2010 13:07:31 GMT -4
. . . and why it took a Constitutional amendment to have Senators chosen by direct election, not by the state representatives. <snip> Before the 16th ammendment how Senators were elected was left to the discretion of the states. Some did elect them through popular elections. Others appointed them through state legislatures. Correct, some states also had popular election to decide who got their electoral votes before it was required. So it's not entirely accurate to say it was required to permit popular votes for Senators. I would agree that it is not entirely accurate to say this, but it also seems to me that's not what the person you are quoting said. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Whoever writes the exam would have control over who can be elected. Certainly the voters can choose to apply such a criterion if they wish to do so, so are we talking about vetting of candidates by the government before they can even stand for election? If so, then I'm inclined to say that Iran has a similar system. Am I now guilty of Obama-is-Hitlerism or Fox-News-is-child-pornism?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2010 13:42:10 GMT -4
I would agree that it is not entirely accurate to say this, but it also seems to me that's not what the person you are quoting said. Her post seemed to me to imply that there were no popularly-elected senators before the ammendment. And it was actually the 17th ammendment we're talking about here - the 16th was Income Tax. I was going by memory and missed it by one. Which was my point. Who vetts the vetters?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 27, 2010 13:46:24 GMT -4
I'd say the context matters. Was it a newsreader, or a commentator? If the second, was it someone known for making over the top sensational claims, or was it someone that is generally taken seriously and meant to be taken seriously? These things matter to whether the statement should be taken as a actual position of the station and not just the ravings of a shock jock employed as entertainment to get the ratings up. A news network should not be employing "shock jocks", they should not be repeatedly giving air time to people like Ann Coulter who have a long history of making racist and bigoted comments. For Fox to continue to associate themselves with people like that hurts their integrity. And I think it's naive to believe News Corp. has no influence over their employees. And since we know going to the moon was largely politically motivated, I think it hurts your argument that "the parent" (ie. the government, or News Corp.) has no influence over "the child" (ie. NASA, or Fox News). But my criticism of Fox News and my concern over News Corp.'s donation are two separate issues. I need to watch Glenn Beck in order to fairly comment on him, and I'm only commenting on what I've seen. But I don't need to watch Fox News in order to believe New Corp.'s donation is not ethical. I earlier gave examples of why I think News Corp. hurts the integrity of their media subsidiaries. I'd like you to respond to them and explain why I'm being unreasonable. How can we be sure that News Corp. isn't using intimidation to kill anti-Republican or pro-Democrat stories on Fox News? How can we be sure they aren't telling The Wall Street Journal to withhold good economic news so the Democrats can't benefit from it during the upcoming election? And do you think it's okay for News Corp. to influence elections by donating to political parties? Surely a Republican victory in the next election would benefit Fox, which in turn benefits News Corp. and their stockholders. I could watch Fox News 24 hours per day and it wouldn't matter... there is no way for me to know what they aren't reporting. That is why News Corp. should not be so blatantly biased. They have to protect their own credibility as well as the credibility of their subsidiaries. I think just the appearance of poor ethics alone should have been enough for News Corp. to abstain from political donations. I think they are flaunting their bias, and they don't care if it hurts the credibility of their other outlets. They know the people who watch Fox News are mostly Republican any way, so it can't hurt their ratings that much. No, I think my original analogy is just fine. If something is labeled as "child porn" the way Fox News is labeled as news, then I shouldn't have to watch it to make sure it really is what it says it is. If Fox News isn't really supposed to be taken seriously as news they shouldn't say it is. If we aren't supposed to believe they are fair and balanced they shouldn't claim to be. If their commentators are hurting their credibility as a news organization then they should dump the commentary and stick to reporting the news. I think you missed the whole point of my analogy. It was not a comment on the content of the Fox News channel, or any of their commentators. That is an entirely separate issue for me. My point is that I don't need to watch Fox News or read The Wall Street Journal to comment on the donation made by News Corp. I don't need to watch child porn to believe it's wrong. I don't need to murder someone to know it's wrong. I don't need to go to the North Pole to know it's cold. And I don't need to watch Fox News to believe that a $1 million donation to the Republican party from News Corp. is unethical. Maybe my sense of right and wrong is different from yours, but that's how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 27, 2010 13:51:30 GMT -4
Interesting. Lunar Orbit, it seems in berating Fox for comparing Obama to Hitler you are comparing their news coverage to child porn. You completely missed the point I was making. It was not commenting on the contents of Fox News, just the ethics of News Corp. donating $1 million to the Republicans. I don't know how many more times I need to say this, but I don't need to watch Fox News to know that the donation makes News Corp. look blatantly biased.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 27, 2010 13:54:35 GMT -4
Her post seemed to me to imply that there were no popularly-elected senators before the ammendment. OK, I interpreted it somewhat differently. Which was my point. Who vetts the vetters? In the Iranian case, it's called the Guardian Council of the Constitution. It has twelve members, six of whom are appointed by the Leader of the Revolution (currently, Ali Khamenei). The other six are appointed by the parliament, but are nominated by someone called the Head of the Judicial Power. Would anyone like to guess who appoints this particular officeholder? Not sure who would do it elsewhere should some similar vetting system be set up in another country.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2010 14:02:17 GMT -4
Interesting. Lunar Orbit, it seems in berating Fox for comparing Obama to Hitler you are comparing their news coverage to child porn. You completely missed the point I was making. No, I didn't miss the point you were trying to make - I just also noticed a little irony in how you made it. True, but you would have to watch them to have an informed opinion of whether they actually are biased. Glenn Beck, interestingly enough, uses unaltered clips of the President on his radio show all the time. To be consistent with your Jon Stewart argument, it appears you would have to agree that someone can get a fair judgement of the President through listening to Glenn Beck.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 27, 2010 14:23:20 GMT -4
Archer17, I'm not going to bother responding to most of what you said because you're starting to piss me off and I am finding it difficult to keep my finger off the ban button. I'll probably follow Gillianren's lead and just try to ignore you from now on. Not necessarily because of bigotry, but because Islamic mosques remind people of what happened. It is entirely because of bigotry, but of course most bigots don't realize they are bigots. A lot of things remind people about 9/11. The vacant land at ground zero reminds people of it. Building a new World Trade Center will remind people of it. When some people are upset that ground zero is vacant, but an equal number are upset by the plans to rebuild, whose sensitivities take precedence? The "towers of light" that used to be there reminded people of it. Airplanes remind people of it. Glenn Beck reminds people of it for his own purposes. Every time my clock shows 9:11 I think of it. Should we program our clocks to be blank for two minutes everyday? When people are reminded of 9/11 by innocent Muslims who had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks they need to recognize how unfair that is and say to themselves "it's not their fault, don't blame them." And move on. They shouldn't let fear, anger, and hatred motivate them. She is likely motivated by the fear of what islamophobes might do if the mosque is constructed. I'm sure there were black people who were willing to sit at the back of the bus just to avoid stirring up trouble with whites. I'm sure there are women who do what their husbands say just so he won't beat them. And what about the families of 9/11 victims who support the mosque? Are they being insensitive to themselves?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 27, 2010 15:05:26 GMT -4
You know, if we aren't allowed to remind people of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani's out of a career.
As far as a basic civics exam is concerned, how about giving the one we already require before people are allowed to become US citizens? Naturalized citizens do tend to know more than average about the workings of the US government, after all.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 27, 2010 15:15:35 GMT -4
George W. Bush reminded people about 9/11 whenever it suited him politically... which was often. How insensitive of him!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2010 15:28:48 GMT -4
As far as a basic civics exam is concerned, how about giving the one we already require before people are allowed to become US citizens? Naturalized citizens do tend to know more than average about the workings of the US government, after all. I suppose you could advocate this position, but I don't think it should be legislated as such.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 27, 2010 15:34:49 GMT -4
I thought the whole thing was supposed to be a proximity argument anyway, in which case because-it-will-remind-people doesn't seem like a very good argument. If you are a short distance away from the site of the former World Trade Center, but have nonetheless managed to push memory of the attacks out of your head, and then see <gasp> a mosque, well - wouldn't that be an issue anywhere? Or is it only necessary to protect people in downtown Manhattan from unpleasant thoughts?
Anyway, you've got a country that has a pretty explicit protection of religion written right into its constitution (well, an amendment). I'd say, if you can't get that changed, and can't figure out some way to ding them on building codes, better get used to it . . .
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2010 15:46:14 GMT -4
I wonder if the iman directing the project, who has made statements that this is an issue of religious tolerance and bridge-building between Islam and other faiths would support building a Christian church in Mecca, say within a few hundred meters of the Kaaba? Surely that would be another great step forward for religious tolerance and bridge-building? Or even better - how about building a Jewish synagogue in Mecca? Surely that would be even more tolerant and bridge-building?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 27, 2010 16:10:59 GMT -4
I agree that Saudi Arabia should endeavor to be more free, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the US should live up to their claim to being the most free country in the world.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 27, 2010 16:36:23 GMT -4
I agree that Saudi Arabia should endeavor to be more free, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the US should live up to their claim to being the most free country in the world. Of course. It was merely an idle thought.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Aug 27, 2010 17:55:49 GMT -4
I wonder if the iman directing the project, who has made statements that this is an issue of religious tolerance and bridge-building between Islam and other faiths would support building a Christian church in Mecca, say within a few hundred meters of the Kaaba? Surely that would be another great step forward for religious tolerance and bridge-building? Or even better - how about building a Jewish synagogue in Mecca? Surely that would be even more tolerant and bridge-building? But of course! Negotiations are supposedly underway about opening the first Catholic church in Saudi Arabia. We will see over the years where this leads, I suppose.
|
|