News Updates

Updates from NYTimes.com. Mostly American news:

Op-Ed: "All Together Now" - How groupthink is destroying the USA

For the record, groupthink is defined as "the act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view." (Dictionary.com) It typically occurs when a person, seeing others giving a "popular" answer (even if it is not, empirically, a correct one), will also fall in line, and then, when confronted later, not know why they did. "Groupthink is a concept that was identified by Irving Janis that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions." (Small Group Communication)

Actually, that Small Group Communication link is quite good for detailing the disadvantages of groupthink. Take a look.

More problems with Florida; ballots and voter lists and public distrust, oh my

The new touch-screen voting machines don't leave a paper trail, can be hacked, and miss votes eight times more often than optical scan machines. And yet they think these things are a good idea?

Washington: Senators Block Initiative to Ban Same-Sex Unions - Attempt to make anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution fails 50-48

On one hand, good. On the other hand, I can't help but feel that the Republican senator Sam Brownback is correct in saying "We won on substance and lost on procedure." Don't fool yourselves into thinking that striking this down is pro-gay; it's mostly, from the looks of it, anti-federal-government-interfering-with-State-rights (since it is the individual State that makes the marriage laws).

And, for my last show, Op-Ed: Conventioneering.com - Bloggers the new media?

If only.

Funniest thing out of childfree lately...

blaizewind:
What happened on that day is not funny and people were extremely effected by the actions of terrorists.

EFFECT - NOUN!

AFFECT - VERB! BITCH!

Do you even know what the First Amendment IS?

Found via Stupid Evil Bastard in this post.

The First Amendment Center has released its 2004 survey on the state of the First Amendment.

Some choice figures:

"The 2004 survey found that just 30 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, ‘The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,’ with 65 percent disagreeing. The nation was split evenly, 49 percent to 49 percent, on that same question two years ago, in the survey following the ‘9/11’ attacks," said Gene Policinski, acting director of the First Amendment Center.

Only 1% of Americans could name "petition" as one of the specific rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Only one of the five freedoms was identified by more than half of those surveyed: 58% named "speech." For the other rights: religion — 17%; press — 15%; assembly — 10%.

More points listed in the article, but the really scary follow-up is the commentary. Quote?

"But this surge of good feeling about the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily translate into support for keeping government from interfering with our freedoms — which is, of course, what the First Amendment is intended to do.

Most at risk? Freedom of the press. A startling 42% of Americans believe that the press in America has too much freedom. What’s an example of “too much”? According to 41% of respondents, newspapers should not be allowed to freely criticize the U.S. military about its strategy and performance."

Yeah, read that again. Nearly half of Americans don't think the press has the right of free speech, specifically where concerning the military or its procedures.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

Thankfully (somewhat), half of those surveyed think that they aren't getting enough information about the government.

• 38% would bar musicians from singing songs "with lyrics that others might find offensive."


• 44% wouldn’t allow people to say things in public that "might be offensive to religious groups."


• A remarkable 63% say people shouldn’t be able to say things in public that "might be offensive to racial groups."

Who gets to define this "might"? I mean, on one hand, yes, blatant racism is bad. Religious hate-mongering is bad. But does "might" cover, say, my arguments about whether God exists or not? Fred Phelps found Matthew Shepard's funeral offensive, should it be disallowed? Where is this line getting drawn?

"Sixty-six percent of respondents favor government funding of social-service programs run by churches — even when the program is delivered with a religious message. And 68% support allowing government officials to post the Ten Commandments inside government buildings. So much for Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation."

That just blows my mind. Seperation of church and State? Why would they bother with that? Especially in a day and age where some Catholic priests are encouraging their ranks to deny communion to pro-choice politicians, I just don't think that allowing churches to receive government funding for social services is a good idea. It opens the door to too many problems.

Maybe it's just me, but I think a fundamental part of any 9th grade history class should involve a detailed look at the Constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms/appropriate other document for one's country.

Some Canadian news

Yukon allows gay marriage, bringing the jurisdiction total up to four

Four down, nine to go.

(no subject)

50 Coolest Song Moments of All Time

Agree or don't, but there are some fine moments in that bunch.