Fang-Face writes “John Brand, a YellowTimes columnist, has a very interesting analysis of paranoia as it pertains to regarding the Bush adminstration. He essentially asks the question: are we the ones who are paranoid, or is it really the gubmint and are we getting it from them? What is truly telling, however, is what writes about a new law being proposed.
Then just a couple of days ago, I received a message dealing with certain federal funds granted to some universities. The gist of the matter boils down to the fact that some professors are accused of teaching subject matters inimical of America’s foreign policy. Some government officials consider this criticism to be a highly undemocratic activity. To eliminate the unpatriotic scum, it is proposed to establish a federal board that would control what may or may not be taught. The proposed legislation is H.R. 3077. The board would consist of members from Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and the National Security Agency.
Why do I get the feeling that Big Brother is getting closer and closer?“
Now the Facts
>>No, seriously: just who is it that’s nuts?
Not you. Nuts aren’t found under skirts.
I understand that many folks enjoy taking shots at Bush. And I say good for those lacking political pusillanimity.
But for those who deftly package their contempt with the holiday wrappings of self-proclaimed “balanced” journalism, I say your as pathetic as that “crooked jerky jockey that drives a crooked horse.”
First, to set this article in context, none of the following words appear anywhere in Mr. Brand’s piece. Nada
Bush (which Fang creatively uses in his headline)
bipartisan
advisory
Democrats
Title IV
prohibition
As for Yellow’s mea faira of “balance”, I confidently leave it to the sophistication of my fellow colleagues to discern the “objective journalism” of
YellowTimes.org.
Now the facts, from sources many librarians will recognize as legit. Not banana colored web puddles.
September 25, 2003
Oct 10, 2003
College lobbyists welcomed the change. “This is a significant improvement,” said Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education. “The changes will help ensure that the advisory committee is in fact an advisory committee, and not a censorship committee.”
October 31, 2003
September 30, 2003
Section 6 ADVISORY BOARD
`(2) PURPOSE- The purpose of the International Advisory Board is–
`(A) to provide expertise in the area of national needs for proficiency in world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs;
`(B) to make recommendations that will promote the excellence of international education programs and result in the growth and development of such programs at the postsecondary education level that will reflect diverse perspectives and the full range of views on world regions, foreign language, and international affairs; and
`(C) to advise the Secretary and the Congress with respect to needs for expertise in government, the private sector, and education in order to enhance America’s understanding of, and engagement in, the world.
Re:Now the Facts
Thanks for doing what I was about to go do! Furthermore, you’ll find this little gem if you go look at the text of the bill (http://tinyurl.com/xid2) at http://thomas.loc.gov/
Enough, already!
So, am I only the only here who thinks that Fang and Tomeboy should just get in a ring and punch it out? It would certainly be a lot more entertaining than listening to them hurl childish insults at each other all over the pages of LISNews.
Seriously, give it a rest. It’s getting old.
Interesting article…
HR 3077 (as referred to senate) says (sec. 633b):
Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the International Advisory Board to mandate, direct, or control an institution of higher education’s specific instructional content,
curriculum, or pro gram of instruction.
But as said in comments, this is new language in the bill. They may have been trying to sneak stuff past. And why do we need this? Looks like something being put in place to then be modified by subsequent executive orders, or oth er legislation. Kinda like FEMA.
The other statements, the secrecy of our energy policy, the abrogation of the Bill of Rights by a declaration of the attorney general, etc, etc, are all worthwhile topics – but maybe not library/academia related.
— End er, Duke_of_URL
î?
Un-balanced
tomeboy’s right about calling bullshit on the writer’s take on this bill, but I’m having a hard time finding where tomeboy gets the idea that YellowTimes.org (or Fang-Face, for that matter) is presenting the column as “balanced journalism.” What I do see is the author labeled as “columnist” and this mission statement: “The mission of YellowTimes.org is to offer our readers unconventional viewpoints from which to observe current events, and to encourage new thinking about the causes and effects of those events.”
Besides, Fox News might sue them if they proclaimed to be balanced! (grin)
Of course, we should never, ever believe what a column or news report or website or urgent email message says about legislation (or a court case, or a research report, or …) without reading the source itself. Especially if we tend to agree with the messenger’s viewpoint.
Of even greater importance, dammit, let’s quote the Grinch song accurately!
Re:Now the Facts
And I understand how folks like yourself who have no capacity for understanding the concept of
personal liberty would rather live as slaves than die as free men. That’s okay; it’s your life and
that’s your choice.
Speaking of “lacking pusillanimity”, by the way, that’s a double negative. To be lacking
pusillanimity is to have a lack of a lack of courage or a very small mind depending on which
definition you want to go with. So, thanks.
At any rate, I have noticed that while you enjoy running off at the mouth and running down
stories posted to LISNews.com, you have never suggested any stories that have been accepted.
Ah, once you again you show how you have no ability to assimilate information. An intelligent and
rational person can see for himself that I did not use the word “Bush” as a stand alone to indicate
your commander-in-thief as the subject of the sentence. An intelligent person would note that I
wrote “Bush administration”, and would further note that I was specifically talking about the topic
of the column in question, not about your government or your commander-in-thief. So, you see, it is
you who has uncreatively quoted out of context.
Once again you’ve shot yourself in the foot. Off hand, one could make the case for an argumentum ad
numerum, however, I don’t have to go that far. An intelligent reader scanning quickly over the
blurbs you’ve offered will see that some of them say exactly the same thing in exactly the same way
and come to the following not necessarily brilliant conclusion: some of those sources got the story
off the wire. Which means that in most cases there is only one source for the blurbs.
Aside from that piece of sloppy work, not to mention your arrogant assumption that alternative
viewpoints cannot possibly be legitimate, you are also naively assuming that this proposed advisory
board will not abuse its position to bring political force to bear to influence the deciding board.
I, on the other hand, in light of the reported abuse of the so-called antiterrorism law the PATRIOT
Act, to gather evidence in a case of low level corruption that could not possibly on the face of it
have anything to do with even domestic terrorism, have every reason to believe that your elected
parasites will operate in the same vein with H.R. 3077. Illegal misuse of federal laws and abuses
of authority have clearly become a consistent pattern of behaviour with your government. Moreso than
usual that is. The good little droogs in the rank and file are merely copying the cavalier
attitudes of their superiour officers toward civil liberties, of course.
Re:Now the Facts
hell, did i post this already? well, i’ll try again.
>>No, seriously: just who is it that’s nuts?
Not you. Nuts aren’t found under skirts.
this joke is profoundly unfunny, by the way.
Good Grief…
we’re back to grammar..again and off the original subject (Apologies to fellow boarders for this trite BS but I couldn’t let this one go)
>>Speaking of “lacking pusillanimity”, by the way, that’s a double negative. To be lacking pusillanimity is to have a lack of a lack of
courage or a very small mind depending on which definition you want to go with. So, thanks.
(American Heritage) pusillanimity – The state or quality of being pusillanimous. COWARDICE.
Hence “lacking political pusillanimity and or cowardice” i.e. Bush detractors I respect for intelligent, factual discourse. This ain’t your group.
As for Gannet, Duke_of_URL and even Anonymous, I appreciate your comments. They are honest and most of all, fair.
Anonymous, for you, this will be my last post with this thread.
Brian, I picked up the “balance” business at the bottom of the “About Us” page. ..While no media, including YellowTimes.org, can possibly present every point of view,
even in the pursuit of “balance,” we attempt to focus…
Thanks for your thoughts as well
Re:Un-balanced
That’s because I never tried to pass off the column as anything at all. Other than my comment about Big Brother getting closer, anyway. All I said was: here it is.