Letters to the Editor
-
Bad News
As is made clear by 'Associative Individualist's' last post things are spiraling dangerously out of control. Pretty soon those who have the least instinct towards iconoclastic or subversive viewpoints will be in great danger. (If in fact we are not already).
We must keep in mind that the atrocious control over or thoughts that looms would not be coming to pass if not for the fear which has been intentionally unleashed upon us. A good part of the citizenry of this country (U.S.) is of course responsible for this development because of the priorities which they themselves have chosen to embrace. Clearly a good percentage of the population is much more concerned with shopping than liberty; clearly a good percentage of the population actually fears death so much that they are willing to embrace any fascism that promises protection. I cannot help but think this has something to do with the population's allegiance to material appeasement at the expense of an ontological perspective. The population has been rooted -so to speak- to a belief system that guarantees happiness only through material collectorism, therefor any threat to the Global Capitalist Model (or perceived threat) instantly throws the population into a panic over what they will lose (money, house, life, etc.). The World Masters clearly promote this paranoia to their own advantage (which advantage accumulates into total power over thought). Technology aides in the dissemination of fear and also promises further means of protection. In other words, if there was ever a time for an ontological awakening it is now. The populations dependence on material satisfaction is like a noose around our necks. Thought, though facilitated by physical elements, is the last bastion of ontological awareness and therefor the only remaining battlefield of oppression. Already a great majority of minds are programmed and these programmed minds are an army of fear that wars with original thought at the behest of the World Masters.
As Lennon sang -"You better free your mind instead."
-
Kitt wiggles a bit longer
On the other hand, you claimed that you were busted for 'intent to distribute' and we call that being a dealer here in Florida.
-- bucky1
Well, here in California, as I would assume in Florida also, we call that legalistic bullshit. Why do you want to expose yourself as a deceitful moron again and again?
-- Kitt
Kitt, you are the one that called others 'dishonest' for talking about dealers after you self-labeled yourself as having been busted for 'intent to distribute' in your state. That means you were charged as a dealer. To quibble over definitions and to name-call in the profane manner that you have used in this thread just shows that you know you are busted for calling others 'dishonest' when in fact it is you who were dishonest.
You may have issues with the other fellow, and also with me; but you were caught in a stupid accusation that does not hold water. I repeat, your accusation was childish and stupid.
Own up to it kid.
-
Reverse Bradley Effect
In a barber shop on Saturday morning, January 12, 2008.
Couple of Italian septuagenarian gents.
"I think the Jags can do it."
"Are you crazy? They can't beat the Pats."
"Not win. But a 13 point spread? They can beat that."
"Yeah I guess you're right."
"And don't tell Nick, but I'm voting for the colored guy."
"You think he can beat those Republicans?"
"Hell yes. Did you see that thing in South Carolina? They're nuts."
"Yeah, I guess you're right."
-
"...legitimate. No matter the intent."
Good point. You realize I was only kidding about Mr. Kristol's pants being on fire.
I do think context matters, however. For example, Mr. Kristol (as yourself, I assume Glenn.) holds him;self out to be some sort of serious journalist/reporter. Now, if he don't report the news in a serious, objective, honest, professional manner then as far as I'm concerned his pants are (metephorically speaking) on fire. That is, it's not legitimate relative to context of being a journalist/reporter of news.
all the news that fit to print,
for now,
bah.
-
gherstein
The Internet is making us stupid
Legal sage Cass Sunstein says democracy is the first casualty of political discourse in the digital age.; By Ben Van Heuvelen
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/07/sunstein/index.html
Generally speaking, it's not a new concern. However, the internet age moving discourse from a single action to a semi-automatic is an interesting way to look at it. I admit I'd not thought of it in those terms. While I'm following the argument, I don't have any well formulated thoughts about it.
One unrefined idea I have goes along the lines of, "It could be too soon to tell." Like any technology, and the cultural context that grows up around it, and in response to it, a certain amount of time must pass before you understand it. I tend to agree with your idea that the effects are not automatically benign. Douglas Hofstadter has disabused me of the notion. But, I also don't think pornography is benign, nor do I think blood and gore computer games are benign. In all, I still think it's my responsibility to accept, "I am what I eat."
Another unrefined thought I have is to hold off making a judgment until I watch this election play out. Certainly, we have swung pretty far to the right. The Overton window moved. Can we self-correct? Is this political environment reflexive? And/or where would we be if the internet had not provided an alternative source of information as the Bush administration eroded many of our taken-for-granted civil liberties? And, will the internet assist in that self-reflection? Don't have the answers to those questions either.
I think it's wise to ask them. And, I think it behooves us to try to answer them. But, I think we should also recognize that the genie is already out of the bottle. I suspect there were those who felt the same way about the printing press.
-
Glenn bought Lenine's lieing version hook line and sinker
I tried to make it clear, but obviously I did not spell it out clearly enough, and a lot of you, including Glenn, seem to have bought Mr. Levant's trumped-up bullshit version because it makes a lovely ideological point.
True, hate-crime speech is on the books in the Canada's Criminal Code. This is unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with THIS story whatsoever; Mr Levant has not been charged with anything by the government. Glenn's update has absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of the Levant case; fine if you want to argue about criminalizing speech, I fully agree, but the Levant case is not an example of this.
What has happened is that a fellow citizen has alleged that Mr. Levant's actions have caused him material harm (which is pretty dubious to put it mildly), and is seeking redress from the Human Rights Commission because the actions were based on discrimination and hate (which has some basis, though more accurately it might better be described as grandstanding and provocation). As in any other tort type civil case, if the matter did go to a hearing, he would have to prove that actual harm was done, and if he could, he would receive compensation for that damage (no punitive damages, just the actual harm done) from Mr. Levant. Who, if he refused to pay, would have recourse to the regular court system (which is actually absurd to talk about, we are are way way beyond hypothetical here).
Because a citizen has laid a complaint alleging harm by another citizen, the government is compelled to investigate, to determine if there are any substantive matters in the dispute, and if there are, attempt to mediate them, and failing that, conduct a public (yes public) hearing. Contrary to Mr. Levine's version, at no time is any party to the dispute compelled to meet with the investigator/mediator. They even let him video tape it, and will not sanction him in any way for posting the video.
Mr. Levine likes to hear his own voice, and like many neocons, loves to present himself as the victim of persecution by political correctness run amok, and, (I kid you not) in particular the victim of persecution by Muslims (who are of course all violent extremists). He is aided in portraying himself thusly by the grandiose name the Commission has, even though it in practise does not amount to not much more than a equal opportunity office or some such.
Many ludicrous and frivolous civil law-suits are laid in the US too, often on politically charged matters. The Commission just provides a venue where those who cannot afford a lawyer can have a hearing, if and only if in the opinion of Commission investigating/mediating staff there is a case.
How Clear Can I Make This?
1. This is a government investigation of a complaint by a Canadian citizen, not an investigation/prosecution/witch-hunt by the government. Should not the government investigate allegations of hate causing harm?
2. This is about substantive damages (if any) to the complainant, not simply Mr. Levine's speech.
3. This was a voluntary meeting with an investigator/mediator, not a compulsory interrogation for thought-crime.
4. All proceedings of the Commission are public, not secret.
5. The sole sanction the Commission has is to order restitution for openly established damages, and this sanction is fully subject to the open rigours of an open civil court.
So, nice point about the noxious fruit of hate-speech laws, I fully agree. Too bad you got suckered into using such a terrible example to illustrate your point.