I think it's probable that many ways ARE better "enough," but we run into the problems of comfort and complacency, where no matter how much better a new system may be, people will resist the change. There could be a utopian system out there, and people would resist changing from their current system to it because change makes them uncomfortable.
The only way to get a lot of people to agree with any change, no matter how small or beneficial, is to force it on them and make them deal with it. That mentality has lead to many terrible things throughout history, but it's, as far as I can tell, the only way to get things done.
As in violent overthrow of the government? Looks more and more like an option.
You're anti-Second Amendment. You don't have any guns.
I was thinking more along the lines of convincing WIP to be a suicide bomber. I'm pretty sure that if I can connect it to support of the "free market", I can make him do anything.
I was thinking more along the lines of convincing WIP to be a suicide bomber. I'm pretty sure that if I can connect it to support of the "free market", I can make him do anything.
You're stuck with whatever decision you make. There's no safety net. If you make the wrong decision, no one will have any sympathy for you, no matter what basis you had for making your decision or whether you even had all the information, education, and reasoning ability to make the right decision. Sink or Swim.
I've always found it interesting that the press loves to scream, "First Amendment, Freedom of the Press!!!" but they seem to ignore the second...
What I find particularly annoying is the way TV crews act when covering events. They are the rudest most inconsiderate people I have ever met.
CIP: I have some friends who do a lot of charity work while dressed up as Star Wars Characters. They are all over CT and the greater New England/New York area (they are but one chapter in a larger group). A few weekends ago they were giving a movie star (who had a bit part in a Star Wars movie) an honorarium. They had setup their cameras so they could tape the event and put it on their website. Sounds good, right?
A little bit into their ceremony a "news" crew crashed the party and planted themselves right in front of their camera crew! This TV News crew destroyed their ability to make a good recording of the event.
The same thing happened when they were at the New York Comicon inducting Kevin Smith. There was some asshole "press" photographer who continually would get in between their staff photographer (while he was taking pictures) to get his own pictures.
I think these particular "press" people should be beaten on sight. Freedom of the Press does not mean you are free to act as an asshole and not suffer the consequences. What happened to common courtesy?
I think these particular "press" people should be beaten on sight. Freedom of the Press does not mean you are free to act as an asshole and not suffer the consequences. What happened to common courtesy?
This has nothing to do with freedom of the press whatsoever. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they are allowed to be discourteous because of freedom of the press. You're basically putting words in the mouths of the press.
Also, these guys are just doing their job. They aren't trying to get in your way on purpose. They are simply paid to get the best pictures possible. If that happens to be between you and the target, you can guess what is going to happen. Their livelihood depends on it, and yours does not, guess who's going to fight harder? Also, last I checked there is no law saying everyone has to be courteous and polite. Otherwise, I'd be in jail for a long time. Nobody deserves to be beaten for doing their job.
If a press photographer gets in your way, you have two choices. You can either let them be, or you can rise up to their level. Grab your camera and crowd them out, just like they do to each other on TV. In a way, it's a lot like a board game when somebody tries to play "just for fun". If one person plays Carcassonne with the goal of making the prettiest castle, they will be crushed by the person trying to actually score the most points. If you are playing a game just for fun, and someone comes along and plays it like a pro, you have to either step it up or give it up.
What happened at Comicon involved a photographer being an asshole and getting in the way of the staff photographer who was standing back to get a wide angle shots. The "press" photographer kept brandishing his press badge as if it were an FBI badge and security for the CON would not touch him.
At one point one of the staff photographers grabbed the guys camera and some "stuff" occurred.
I understand the point about playing for the win and playing for fun. The difference here is that a private organization is trying to record one of their events using their people and "press" people are coming in and getting in the way of the ceremony. How would you feel if you were at your wedding and you hired a photographer to take pictures for your album and suddenly, some "press" photographer from the local paper showed up and got in the way of the photographer you hired? What if you then told the "press" photographer to leave and they started going on an on about "Freedom of the Press"?
You can't always "crowd" them out. Sometimes the shot you are filming requires you to be a good distance away from the subject.
If it were me, I would trip the "press" man who tried to crowd me out. If that did not work then I would do something nastier. I would not hurt the guy (aside from freedom of the press they also spout, "I have a lawyer!") but I would make sure to constantly jostle them or otherwise get in the way of their camera until they leave or act in a courteous manner.
How would you feel if you were at your wedding and you hired a photographer to take pictures for your album and suddenly, some "press" photographer from the local paper showed up and got in the way of the photographer you hired? What if you then told the "press" photographer to leave and they started going on an on about "Freedom of the Press"?
If it's a private party, they aren't allowed to be there, period. If my wedding was in a public place, say the town park, there's nothing I can do unless they break a law. Also, I would hope the photographer I hired knows how to deal with that sort of thing.
Mr. Olbermann is clearly not living in the same time-line/dimension that I am.
We enveloped “our†President in 2001.
And those who did not believe he should have been elected — indeed, those who did not believe he had been elected — willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.
Those people are still out there! They did not quiet down until Kerry lost in 2004.
I still believe that the special prosecutor went to far in going after Scooter. As soon as he found out that Armitage was the leaker the case should have been closed and Armitage should have gone to jail. Armitage is still a free man!
I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.
It's not a lie if you believe it to be true. A lie requires knowledge that it is a lie.
I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but instead to stifle dissent.
Umm... it is the Democrats who are talking about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine". It was McCain and Feingold who instituted "Campaign Finance Reform" AKA: no political speech before an election.
President Bush is far from perfect but in this case he did right. He was also forced to act to prevent a man from going to prison while waiting out his appeals.
Before Libby sees a day of jail time I want to see Armitage serve jail time. He committed the crime, he should do the time. If Armitage did not commit a crime than the whole case was a travesty and a witch hunt designed to cause political damage and not to get facts.
You know, I just had to come in here and add some insight on the photographer thing.
As far as I can tell Steve has the exact same opinion I do. If a news person tries to butt in the way of the photographer that is employed by the performer/entertainer on stage, I think that the hired man should punch him in the face and continue taking pictures (as long as he asks him nicely to move first). Of course, If I was running the show, I would have a roped off section in the front of the crowd for my photographer/camera guy.
In conclusion, I think that this comes down to a morals issue. When you're in a situation like the one the Steve first described, I personally think that he should jack him in the face, but what do I know? Anyway, that wouldn't be "politically correct". *sigh*
$250K and change? I think I have that in my back pocket . . . Oh yeah, here ya go:
Gee. This really must have hurt.
Mr. Olbermann is clearly not living in the same time-line/dimension that I am.
It's easy to see what he's talking about here. Everyone wanted him to live up to the moment. I know I did. I voted for him! Every day I was praying, "Please let him live up to this challenge. Please let him draw on some hitherto unseen font of wisdom and strength to help us all through this. Please don't let him screw it all up." That's what he's talking about. We all supported him, no matter what we felt about him, hoping he would do right.
It's not a lie if you believe it to be true.
It's not a lie if you believe it to be true? Is this the George Costanza defense? I've had criminal defendants try it. Trust me, it doesn't work.
I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but instead to stifle dissent.
Umm... it is the Democrats who are talking about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine". It was McCain and Feingold who instituted "Campaign Finance Reform" AKA: no political speech before an election.
He stifled dissent in outing a CIA operative to shut up her husband. The Fairness Doctrine and Campaign Finance Reform don't have anything whatsoever to do with this statement.
He was also forced to act to prevent a man from going to prison while waiting out his appeals.
Forced?!! He wasn't forced to do anything. He doesn't give a damn about letting people go to prison. If he was so concerned, why doesn't he get down to the business of commuting the sentence of every federal defendant? Why didn't he commute Jack Abramoff's sentence? How about Randy Cunningham's sentence?
As for Scooter going to prison while waiting for a result of an appeal, that's what happens in probably 99% of all criminal cases. In federal court, a defendant has to prove that his appeal raises a "substantial question" under 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (b)(1)(B) in order to avoid custody while awaiting the results of an appeal. A substantial question is one that is "close" or that "could very well be decided the other way". United States v. Perholtz, 836 F.2d 554, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1987)(per curiam). As you might imagine, it's extrememly difficult for a defendant to prove this. Most can't. Scooter had the same chance that all other defendants have to prove it, and even though he submitted a 122 page brief, he couldn't do it either.
This isn't a case of a bunch or cazy rogue prosecutors and judges railroading someone. The system worked the way it works for everyone else until GWB short-circuited it just like Nixon tried to do when he fired Archibald Cox.
This thing about Armitage - He may have said he leaked, but the whole idea behind the investigation was that these guys are liars. You can't trust them. Maybe Armitage wasn't the primary leaker. Maybe there were many more leakers. That's why the investigation took place - to find out the answers. Scooter derailed the investigation. He was tried and convicted. I don't understand why the "law and order" party has so much trouble with that.
The forcing of the Confederate States to remain in the Union was a big mistake and we are all still paying for it today as it cemented the role of the US government as the power spot when it was once the states. The states should have been allowed to leave.
Thanks for the in-depth legal analysis. I now better understand why Scooter should be in jail. However, I still believe that to be a liar you must know that you are spreading falsehoods. To be otherwise than every preacher in the world must be a liar because they can not prove what they preach is true.
Secondly I do believe the Confederate States should have been allowed to leave the Union. What greater freedom is there than the freedom to leave a group when you feel it no longer is in line with your beliefs? Being forced to remain is not freedom.
Jason: I found the image online. I'll bet someone thought it would be a good gesture to pay it way early, but it kinda comes off as arrogant; especially when they've been crying so much that poor Scoot was gonna be so devastated.
Steve: I agree with Jason about the Confederacy thread. I'm pretty sure that if the CSA had won, it wouldn't have been long before its own states began seceding. Even if it did manage to stay together, "we" wouldn't have been nearly the economic and world power "we" are today.
Also, please start a thread about the "It's not a lie if you believe it to be true" statement. It would be very interesting to see who agrees/disagrees and, if so, why.
Also, please start a thread about the "It's not a lie if you believe it to be true" statement. It would be very interesting to see who agrees/disagrees and, if so, why.
It was covered in an earlier thread. Might have been mixed in with the "Burden of Proof" stuff.
Comments
The only way to get a lot of people to agree with any change, no matter how small or beneficial, is to force it on them and make them deal with it. That mentality has lead to many terrible things throughout history, but it's, as far as I can tell, the only way to get things done.
Sound appealing?
John Stossel would do it.
What I find particularly annoying is the way TV crews act when covering events. They are the rudest most inconsiderate people I have ever met.
CIP: I have some friends who do a lot of charity work while dressed up as Star Wars Characters. They are all over CT and the greater New England/New York area (they are but one chapter in a larger group). A few weekends ago they were giving a movie star (who had a bit part in a Star Wars movie) an honorarium. They had setup their cameras so they could tape the event and put it on their website. Sounds good, right?
A little bit into their ceremony a "news" crew crashed the party and planted themselves right in front of their camera crew! This TV News crew destroyed their ability to make a good recording of the event.
The same thing happened when they were at the New York Comicon inducting Kevin Smith. There was some asshole "press" photographer who continually would get in between their staff photographer (while he was taking pictures) to get his own pictures.
I think these particular "press" people should be beaten on sight. Freedom of the Press does not mean you are free to act as an asshole and not suffer the consequences. What happened to common courtesy?
Also, these guys are just doing their job. They aren't trying to get in your way on purpose. They are simply paid to get the best pictures possible. If that happens to be between you and the target, you can guess what is going to happen. Their livelihood depends on it, and yours does not, guess who's going to fight harder? Also, last I checked there is no law saying everyone has to be courteous and polite. Otherwise, I'd be in jail for a long time. Nobody deserves to be beaten for doing their job.
If a press photographer gets in your way, you have two choices. You can either let them be, or you can rise up to their level. Grab your camera and crowd them out, just like they do to each other on TV. In a way, it's a lot like a board game when somebody tries to play "just for fun". If one person plays Carcassonne with the goal of making the prettiest castle, they will be crushed by the person trying to actually score the most points. If you are playing a game just for fun, and someone comes along and plays it like a pro, you have to either step it up or give it up.
Or are you . . . chicken?
At one point one of the staff photographers grabbed the guys camera and some "stuff" occurred.
I understand the point about playing for the win and playing for fun. The difference here is that a private organization is trying to record one of their events using their people and "press" people are coming in and getting in the way of the ceremony. How would you feel if you were at your wedding and you hired a photographer to take pictures for your album and suddenly, some "press" photographer from the local paper showed up and got in the way of the photographer you hired? What if you then told the "press" photographer to leave and they started going on an on about "Freedom of the Press"?
You can't always "crowd" them out. Sometimes the shot you are filming requires you to be a good distance away from the subject.
If it were me, I would trip the "press" man who tried to crowd me out. If that did not work then I would do something nastier. I would not hurt the guy (aside from freedom of the press they also spout, "I have a lawyer!") but I would make sure to constantly jostle them or otherwise get in the way of their camera until they leave or act in a courteous manner.
Steve, quit your bitch ass whining.
Maybe if the biotech people on the board cooperate, we could have an army of eight foot tall monkey men in reserve . . .
Better yet, here's the video:
I still believe that the special prosecutor went to far in going after Scooter. As soon as he found out that Armitage was the leaker the case should have been closed and Armitage should have gone to jail. Armitage is still a free man! It's not a lie if you believe it to be true. A lie requires knowledge that it is a lie. Umm... it is the Democrats who are talking about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine". It was McCain and Feingold who instituted "Campaign Finance Reform" AKA: no political speech before an election.
President Bush is far from perfect but in this case he did right. He was also forced to act to prevent a man from going to prison while waiting out his appeals.
Before Libby sees a day of jail time I want to see Armitage serve jail time. He committed the crime, he should do the time. If Armitage did not commit a crime than the whole case was a travesty and a witch hunt designed to cause political damage and not to get facts.
As far as I can tell Steve has the exact same opinion I do. If a news person tries to butt in the way of the photographer that is employed by the performer/entertainer on stage, I think that the hired man should punch him in the face and continue taking pictures (as long as he asks him nicely to move first). Of course, If I was running the show, I would have a roped off section in the front of the crowd for my photographer/camera guy.
In conclusion, I think that this comes down to a morals issue. When you're in a situation like the one the Steve first described, I personally think that he should jack him in the face, but what do I know? Anyway, that wouldn't be "politically correct". *sigh*
Gee. This really must have hurt. It's easy to see what he's talking about here. Everyone wanted him to live up to the moment. I know I did. I voted for him! Every day I was praying, "Please let him live up to this challenge. Please let him draw on some hitherto unseen font of wisdom and strength to help us all through this. Please don't let him screw it all up." That's what he's talking about. We all supported him, no matter what we felt about him, hoping he would do right. It's not a lie if you believe it to be true? Is this the George Costanza defense? I've had criminal defendants try it. Trust me, it doesn't work. He stifled dissent in outing a CIA operative to shut up her husband. The Fairness Doctrine and Campaign Finance Reform don't have anything whatsoever to do with this statement. Forced?!! He wasn't forced to do anything. He doesn't give a damn about letting people go to prison. If he was so concerned, why doesn't he get down to the business of commuting the sentence of every federal defendant? Why didn't he commute Jack Abramoff's sentence? How about Randy Cunningham's sentence?
As for Scooter going to prison while waiting for a result of an appeal, that's what happens in probably 99% of all criminal cases. In federal court, a defendant has to prove that his appeal raises a "substantial question" under 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (b)(1)(B) in order to avoid custody while awaiting the results of an appeal. A substantial question is one that is "close" or that "could very well be decided the other way". United States v. Perholtz, 836 F.2d 554, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1987)(per curiam). As you might imagine, it's extrememly difficult for a defendant to prove this. Most can't. Scooter had the same chance that all other defendants have to prove it, and even though he submitted a 122 page brief, he couldn't do it either.
This isn't a case of a bunch or cazy rogue prosecutors and judges railroading someone. The system worked the way it works for everyone else until GWB short-circuited it just like Nixon tried to do when he fired Archibald Cox.
This thing about Armitage - He may have said he leaked, but the whole idea behind the investigation was that these guys are liars. You can't trust them. Maybe Armitage wasn't the primary leaker. Maybe there were many more leakers. That's why the investigation took place - to find out the answers. Scooter derailed the investigation. He was tried and convicted. I don't understand why the "law and order" party has so much trouble with that. Please tell me this was a joke.
Thanks for the in-depth legal analysis. I now better understand why Scooter should be in jail. However, I still believe that to be a liar you must know that you are spreading falsehoods. To be otherwise than every preacher in the world must be a liar because they can not prove what they preach is true.
Secondly I do believe the Confederate States should have been allowed to leave the Union. What greater freedom is there than the freedom to leave a group when you feel it no longer is in line with your beliefs? Being forced to remain is not freedom.
Start a new thread for the Confederacy argument. I'd like to see where this one goes.
Steve: I agree with Jason about the Confederacy thread. I'm pretty sure that if the CSA had won, it wouldn't have been long before its own states began seceding. Even if it did manage to stay together, "we" wouldn't have been nearly the economic and world power "we" are today.
Also, please start a thread about the "It's not a lie if you believe it to be true" statement. It would be very interesting to see who agrees/disagrees and, if so, why.