Pixiq

You call yourself a free speech advocate?

You are nothing but a liberal hypocrite.

Carlos,

I think he said he asked to attend and was told he couldn’t come because of his politics or some other reason, like he wasn’t a real journalist. I believe that is the reason for the smile, he’s proving his point that Katie Couric is a hypocrite. Maybe he just smiles like that all the time. But Couric did engage in activism during the campaign and call it journalism as did several others. Couric often does commentary and calls it journalism.

I think that colleges, private or public, do have a duty to allow additional speech on their properties. BTW even the property of ‘public’ universities and colleges is private property. Private and public colleges and universities also get money from goverment and are allowed to not pay taxes. These institutions are supposed to be about freedom of expression and learning. I didn’t see him handing out his movie. But is giving something away soliciting? I’m not sure.

Once they put handcuffs on him and moved him he wasn’t free to go. So he was arrested. Just because they offered to let him go later and didn’t file charges doesn’t mean he wasn’t at one point arrested.

The problem I had with this guy is that when watching the video, this guy kept grinning as if what he was doing was a complete joke. Like he knew what he was doing was not protected free speech under the constitution because he is on university property. Whether or not universities that receive government funds make them public or not is something for debate for another day, but I agree, this guy gives journalists a bad name.

I want to touch on his grin one last time. This is kind of like the ‘he was asking for it’ comments that we all seem to abhor in other situations.

I did some checking on this one because it’s important for a few reasons. This kind of comes down to what is a public forum and what isn’t along with a few other questions.

Since most college campuses are made up of people that are of majority age (over 18 in most places) rules, in general, are very different then for primary and secondary schools. The open spaces of many colleges are open to the public to be used as they wish. I live near both a public university (Rutgers) and several private universities (the most widely known Princeton). I walk and take photos on both types campuses regularly and have never been questioned about my activities by anyone. I attended a private college and the public was welcome on the campus at all times except for one day a year.

I think it’s interesting that the google street view camera car was allowed into the campus and photographed everywhere a car can be driven. These photos are posted on the web.

This was about making someone they don’t agree with leave. If he was someone they agreede wtih he’d be invited.

We are very happy to have discovered your blog, and have included it in the Picayune’s National Feeds.

Viva La Fourth Estate!

My take on the “grin” is that some people have different responses to stress, fear, and embarrassment.

Where one person may react with an angry expression and demeanor, another may react with smiles, grins, jokes, or consistent questions. Some people react with complete silence.

It is not enjoyable to be detained or arrested by law enforcement officials no matter how polite, respectful, and restrained they are.

People react differently.

Duane,

Where did you hear that he asked to attend and was denied because of his politics?

From what I see in the video, he just showed up there and was not allowed in with his two cameramen.

But if you are familiar with any awards ceremony or banquets of this stature, you would know that you just can’t show up and expect to be accommodated.

If you were just a print journalist with a pen and a notebook, perhaps this would be possible.

But a guy with a microphone and two cameramen need to be specially accommodated so they can hook themselves up to the soundboard and stand in a designated area where they would able to get clear footage without getting in the way.

That’s just the way it is. There is certain protocol when it comes to the media covering events.

And yes, he was handing out his movie so he was soliciting. And that is something a real journalist does not do.

You say his purpose was to prove that Katie Couric is a hypocrite?

Then he was there as an activist, not a journalist.

He has no business calling himself a journalist. He’s a fucking wanker.

I thought I heard him say he asked. Now it’s not clear if it was on the day of or prior on my last listening. But it is clear that he’s not trying to get in to the event. He’s standing outside and he’s not in anyone’s way. So what if he asks some people some questions as long as they don’t mind answering and are over the age of majority. Also it’s obvious that the university allows anyone to walk across the campus and use the property unless you disagree with their political rules.

I think he called himself as much of a journalist as Katie Couric. She’s a commentator that calls herself a reporter. He seems to claim he’s a commentator.

I’ve found some other photos of him. He’s always smiling like that. So I’d guess it’s a combination that he always smiles and stress.

Carlos, if Micheal Moore was to do this someplace where Rush Limbaugh was getting an award and got handcuffed in basically the same circmstancs what would you say? It wouldn’t happen however because Limbaugh would invite Moore in to the event.

Note to Carlos Miller:

This is off-topic, but site-related. As you requested, I’ve added your Mariel boatlift article to the associated Wikipedia page (link here). You should check the modified page out now, as they might revert the change later. You’re in the External Links section, which is near the bottom of the page. Look for a line that says “related article by Carlos Miller”.

I haven’t integrated your content (i.e., points from your article) into the body of the Wikipedia page. Presently, there’s a technical issue that complicates edits for me. If I can resolve it, I’ll merge the two pages. Of course, after that’s done, they’ll probably revert the changes.

Note that anybody reading this could make exactly the same edits. However, I recommend that people not get involved with Wikipedia, even if it’s just to work on the Mariel boatlift page, unless they’re quite patient.

I really don’t have a problem with him standing there and asking questions.

But I do have an issue with him handing out his movies.

To do both is unprofessional and self-serving if you’re going to claim you are a journalist – or even a commentator.

In this case, he’s a solicitor.

Handing out your movies is propaganda. And it’s fine if you are invited by the university for a scheduled function, but you just can’t pop up on campus and start doing this and not expect the cops to throw you out.

If Michael Moore did the same thing at a Rush Limbaugh event and got himself arrested, I wouldn’t be defending him for his First Amendment rights because he is an activist and is willing to subject himself to arrest for his cause.

But I do agree with Moore on many things, so I would probably be cheering him on as a fellow liberal.

Just as all the righties in the blogosphere are cheering on this fuckhead.

But I wouldn’t be bitching about First Amendment violations like all the right-wing idiots in the blogosphere are doing because I’m a little more realistic than that.

I’ve covered many protests where activists subject themselves to arrest. That’s the point of the protest.

And that was the point in Ziegler’s case.

Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, The media was so intent on hurting Bush they didn’t even bother to fact check stories.

It’s going to be difficult for me to stick to my resolution to address everything that you’ve said in a measured way. I’d very much like to engage you on the Dan Rather issue. You must be aware of the existence of a woman who was present decades ago when the original events took place and who confirmed the salient points. I watched the interview in question. You had to have seen it. If not, I’ll make a note that I’ll need to identify her.

Additionally, I’d be surprised if you weren’t aware that Bush, as Governor, paid out state funds (millions of dollars, if I remember correctly) as part of a deal to prevent somebody from coming forward about precisely the same issue? If not, I suppose that I’ll need to identify the recipient of the payment as well.

I don’t even watch survivor, fake drama. I’ve traveled on my own, on a motorcycle in 3rd world countries, where I hardly knew the language, for months at a time.

I’m not here to actually box with anyone. I just say what I think. I know when I’m stating an opinion and a fact. But to me this site is about stating what we think about issues. Not necessarily about sticking to facts.

This post is a perfect one to illustrate that point. The known facts of what actually happened are very thin. We know that what Ziegler has provided is spun his way, we know what USC has provided is spun their way. As a matter of fact it’s impossible to have any discussion of this matter without making assumptions and forming opinions based on life experience. I’ve known that from the get go.

My experiences tell me it would have been better to be more accomodating.

VOR-

Hey, how do you italicize?

“You must be aware of the existence of a woman who was present decades ago when the original events took place and who confirmed the salient points.”

So you are saying don’t hate the player hate the game? No wait, don’t shoot the messenger when the message is forged? Why don’t you get some actors together and recreate the missing 18 minutes from the Nixon tapes?

Who is Paula Jones for a thousand Alex?

pinandpuller,

you use the following with out the quotes, “” and “” I hope it worked.

Recreate the missing 18 minutes? Interesting idea.

I’ll try again you surround the “em” and “/em” withe angle brackets

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, You might be interested in a book called “Other Losses” about the aftermath of WWII and the killing by neglect of a million Germans kept in camps by Eisenhower.

You’ve suggested that I look at some events that are clearly important. Thank you.

I’d need to think things through before I drew any conclusions about the events in question. However, some questions come to mind. They’re not intended for debate, because I don’t know the answers myself.

What is the lesson, exactly?

Is the death of one million people due to neglect better, or worse, than the intentional death of one person?

Does the fact that nobody was held accountable for what happened to the Germans at the time mean that nobody should be held accountable for their choices now?

Does it matter that the dead people then were “just Germans”, even though they didn’t deserve this? Does it matter that the dead people now are “just terrorists” (i.e., random civilians, as the Germans might have been) ?

If something like this is unintentional, does that make a large number of deaths O.K. ? If it’s intentional, isn’t it called a “war crime” ? After World War II, didn’t U.S. forces execute people who were only guilty of a small number of deaths? Was that the right thing to do?

Should modern-day war criminals be allowed to appear on talk shows and write their memoirs, or if World War II is relevant, should they have the same fate as the World War II war criminals?

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Hey, how do you italicize?

I see that Mr. Kerzic has addressed the issue. If you’re still having difficulties, copy and paste the following line, then modify the text as necessary:

<em>Your text goes here</em>

Note to Duane Kerzic:

You said, I don’t even watch survivor, fake drama. I’ve traveled on my own, on a motorcycle in 3rd world countries, where I hardly knew the language, for months at a time.

Yes, I’d have guessed that it would be something like that. I haven’t watched much TV of any type since the 1990s myself, though my life is much less interesting. FYI Survivor is about people who need to balance common ground and conflicting interests.

You said, I’m not here to actually box with anyone. I just say what I think. I know when I’m stating an opinion and a fact. But to me this site is about stating what we think about issues. Not necessarily about sticking to facts.

Of course you’re here to box with people. If it’s done correctly, it’s excellent mental exercise, isn’t it? In some cases, it’s beneficial to people and possibly to society. There was a poster on another thread who took part in a brawl, but seemed to feel better as she left. Additionally, I’d never tell somebody to stick to facts. Look at all the opinions that I’ve offered. Finally, if you’re going to talk about fair and unfair, or right and wrong, that’s always an opinion, right?

However, if people are debating things and they’d like to settle something, they need to determine what it is, exactly, that they’re in disagreement about. After that, facts can be checked. Opinions are more difficult, and more interesting.

You said, the Ziegler case is a perfect one to illustrate that point. The known facts of what actually happened are very thin. We know that what Ziegler has provided is spun his way, we know what USC has provided is spun their way. As a matter of fact it’s impossible to have any discussion of this matter without making assumptions and forming opinions based on life experience.

And you and Mr. Miller have had different life experiences, you’ve made different assumptions, and the end result is different opinions. The only thing that you’ll be able to settle is the question of exactly where you disagree.

You said, My experiences tell me it would have been better to be more accommodating. I meant something that I said earlier. I honestly have no party-line opinion related to this specific assertion. If pressed, I’d focus on tangible issues that I’d be comfortable debating. For example, the infamous Michael Moore assertions could be tested, but I don’t know if Mr. Moore would be willing to get himself arrested simply to facilitate this discussion.

Note to Duane Kerzic: You said to Pinandpuller, I’ll try again you surround the “em” and “/em” with the angle brackets.

If you need to explain this kind of thing to somebody again, it’s much easier to show them. For example, most users would be able to understand this example:

<em>This is text</em>

The problem with this approach is that you can’t use certain punctuation characters in posts reliably, so it’s difficult to present examples of this type. The solution is a bit complicated, but I’ll explain it for the benefit of anybody who might find this useful:

If you need an ampersand, use &amp;

If you need a greater-than sign, use &gt;

If you need a less-than sign, use &lt;

You see, Duane, most of the people I write about on this blog, including me and you, did not purposely set out to get themselves arrested.

They may not have backed down when confronted by police – including me and you – but the issue wasn’t over liberalism or conservatism.

It was about the First Amendment.

You’re a conservative. The Phoenix blogger is a conservative. Many of my readers are conservatives.

I’m a liberal.

So the issue here is not partisan politics.

And yes, it’s true he always wears that smirk. And it’s true that is one of the reasons why I don’t like him at all.

Have you ever come across a guy that you just want to punch in the face?

I just did.

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, I could have sworn that you said… that Bush is the worst guy in the last 5 generations … ergo any punishment befitting him would be of mythical proportions so it follows that those who helped him pass his legislation in life should join his punishment in the afterlife.

That’s pretty good. You’re one of the rope reasoners, aren’t you? Hyper-inductive, is that the term? High scores on pattern-based IQ tests, or does it only work in one direction?

Check the post. I said that the country was facing the worst mess that it’s been in for five generations. I didn’t say that Bush was the worst person in five generations. Bush isn’t personally responsible for all of this. The notion would be ridiculous.

I’ve said before that Bush is both an example and a symbol of the things that are the worst in us. That’s the best way to put it. He’s not a mythic figure. He’s a small man. He’s what we’ll become if we’re not careful. A fair number of people agree with this assessment. Actually, at this point, it might be a majority view. Quite often, majority views are mistaken, but it’s reasonable to point them out and to discuss them.

However, I wouldn’t condemn somebody to pushing boulders forever simply because they’d been a failure or a bad person. That would be wrong. My biggest concern would be that they should take responsibility for the choices that they made. This is something that Bush was rarely willing to do.

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, I found the text you were going to just delete and turned it into napkin holders.

It took me a minute to get this. I’ve never watched Martha Stewart on TV. I gather that she’s similar to MacGyver, the difference being that she turns everyday objects into household tools or decorations instead of explosives or solvents. If that’s the case, it would be interesting to see these two team up.

Note to Pinandpuller:

I said, You must be aware of the existence of a woman who was present decades ago when the original events took place and who confirmed the salient points.

You said, So you are saying don’t hate the player hate the game? No wait, don’t shoot the messenger when the message is forged? Why don’t you get some actors together and recreate the missing 18 minutes from the Nixon tapes?

I assume that you’re being obscure because you felt that I was being obscure. If that’s the case, I honestly didn’t remember the woman’s name. It’s been years since she was interviewed. Additionally, I worded the post as politely as possible because I didn’t want to make Mr. Kerzic feel that this was an attack. Would you have preferred that I type something like RATHER GOOD BUSH BAD in all-caps? Possibly add some exclamation marks? That wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

Regarding the “forged message” that you’ve mentioned here: There’s always been speculation, in my opinion speculation that’s worth thinking about, that the “message” was forged by Karl Rove. It’s exactly the way that he would have handled the problem. And you’ve got to admit, if Rove was responsible, it was a stroke of genius. If Bush did, in fact, pay blackmail to Ben Barnes before the Dan Rather incident (apparently 23 million dollars total), he never had to pay a penny afterwards. They solved two problems in one stroke.

Note to Duane Kerzic: As promised, here’s how to search sites of this type including comments.

The only major drawback to this method is that it may not work until a few weeks after the fact. For example, you can search last month’s comments, but you may or may not be able to search yesterday’s comments.

Go to Google and enter something like this in the search box:

site:carlosmiller.com  ”el paso”

Replace “el paso” with any regular search terms. This will search both the official site content and the comments. Searches will be limited to the specified site. The results list won’t take you directly to matching comments, but it’ll take you to the pages that contain them.

There’s a second possible approach that’ll work for most WordPress sites. Under this approach, the site admin installs a WordPress plugin named Search Everything (or a similar plugin). The WordPress plugin adds comments support to the existing search box. Mr. Miller knows a WordPress person who’d be able to comment on this approach.

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Who is Paula Jones for a thousand Alex?

Pinandpuller, you’re good with patterns or, more precisely, chains of thought. However, you’ve made a low-IQ statement. You can do better than this. If you say CLINTON SEX SEX SEX LIE IMMORAL BAD, your opponents are going to say BUSH LIE LIE LIE WAR WAR TORTURE MONEY GONE COUNTRY WRECKED. There’s no comparison. After everything that happened, it’s a foolish tack.

BTW I’m not a Clinton fan. Charismatic is not the same thing as character.

If you’d like to debate things, you should probably wait until I have a chance to state a thesis or I intentionally pick a fight. My short essay on Bush was an honest attempt to respond to one of your questions and it was intended as an opinion piece.

I do intend to state a thesis as part of an eventual response to Mr. Kerzic’s set of concerns. You may non-sequitur the response or the thesis to pieces, if you like. That’ll be interesting. I’ve no doubt that somebody with your talents will be able to bring Dr. Who or Baffin Island into it somehow.

My mama always said,”Better to be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass.” That’s how I roll when I don’t have time to write a script.

I could bring up ET since you brought up thesis pieces.

Note to Pinandpuller:

You said, My mama always said,”Better to be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass.” I’m going to use that one. I gather that it’s on bumper stickers and T-shirts, but I’ve actually never heard the line before.

You also said, I could bring up ET since you brought up thesis pieces. I try to present the thesis as a whole, and not as pieces. If there’s too many pieces laying about, it might attract minotaurs. I’ve sometimes wondered if John and Forrest Mars felt foolish about the fact that they’d turned Spielberg down. If you think about it, their last name would have been a good fit for an S.F. movie.

Is the death of one million people due to neglect better, or worse, than the intentional death of one person?

Well it depends on who gets to vote. Stalin? Ford engineers? If the victims get to vote I suppose that it would be a million to one.

Also shouldn’t you be saying “alleged” war criminal re Bush? Don’t you believe in innocent until proven guilty? Isn’t that working back from a conclusion like you accuse fundies of doing?

BTW VOR-

The Paula Jones reference goes to the lady you cited who was present or knowlegeable about Bush actions (National Guard or whatever) which coroborated a fake document put out by Dan Rather. Do you see the connection?

VOR

Mama also claims I have ADD so maybe you better stick to three easy theses.

Also, when they tried to escort him, he said, “no, you’re not … I’m not going to move.”

When the cops who arrested me escorted me across the street, I walked with them across the street.

When the cops who arrested you led you to that cell, you walked with them.

Can you imagine how they would have reacted if you flatly refused and then plopped yourself down on your ass like a toddler?

You would have gotten your ass kicked.

I’m not saying it would have been justified but let’s be realistic.

The cops here handled it very professionally and it should be commended because other cops would have lost their tempers.

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Well it depends on who gets to vote. Stalin? Ford engineers? If the victims get to vote I suppose that it would be a million to one.

The question was directed at you, or more accurately, the reader.

You also said, Also shouldn’t you be saying “alleged” war criminal re Bush? Don’t you believe in innocent until proven guilty? Isn’t that working back from a conclusion like you accuse fundies of doing?

Useful points. I’ll address them in the order that feels right, which differs from the order that you’ve used.

First, to be clear, everybody works backwards to some extent. Fundamentalists are simply the baseline.

On a related note, this is why science is important. It’s also why science and religion are fundamentally incompatible (to coin a phrase). It’s not that science is going to “disprove” the existence of the Fundamentalist God, though it is driving Him farther and farther into the shadows, into the places just beyond the reach of the light. It’s that science is the one, and only, approach that allows us to move forward. Science is the only approach that allows us to build on existing knowledge, to consistently and reliably produce facts we don’t already know (or, more precisely, believe).

Science is the light. Working backwards is religion. It’s the darkness. When you’re talking about the human mind, working backwards is also the most natural thing that there is.

Second, regarding the innocent until proven guilty question: If somebody isn’t ever going to be tried, how does your question apply? I’m not saying that it is, or isn’t a, valid question. But it’s not valid just because it sounds valid. In the context that you’re referring to, this question strikes me as a non-sequitur.

Third, regarding the “alleged” war criminal question: As I’ve just noted, Bush won’t be tried, so it would be inappropriate to refer to him as a “convicted” war criminal. However, by the same token, the word “alleged” seems inappropriate as well. Bush will never be formally punished, but he’ll never be formally cleared either. History will be the judge, and there’s nothing wrong with the debate over what history is likely to say.

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, Mama also claims I have ADD so maybe you better stick to three easy theses.

Then you probably have an indigo coat or jacket. You can put the extra theses in the pockets.

Note to Pinandpuller: You said, “a fake document put out by Dan Rather”.

This phrase wasn’t the important part of your question, but I’d like to address it briefly.

The documents in question (plural) were almost certainly “fake”. However, let’s be clear about a few things. A key piece of evidence that was cited at the time wasn’t valid at all. Contrary to common belief, the documents were actually never proven to be “fake”, and CBS never actually admitted that they were “fake”. CBS did acknowledge that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents, and this was certainly correct.

Whether or not the documents were “fake”, CBS mishandled the entire affair. They ended up looking like idiots. More importantly, and some people believe that Karl Rove planned it this way, the incident obliterated any further interest that the mainstream media had in reporting on what actually had happened three decades earlier. In my opinion, CBS has a great deal to answer for.

Incidentally, Roger Stone, who’s been accused of setting the whole thing up with Mr. Rove’s assistance, has offered a valid argument in his defense. He says, “I believe in bank shots, but that one was too big a risk”.

You also said, The Paula Jones reference goes to the lady you cited who was present or knowlegeable about Bush actions… Do you see the connection?

Yes. There’s more than one possible parallel. Originally, I assumed that you were simply making the following carefully-reasoned argument, which I still encounter from time to time:

CLINTON SEX LIE IMMORAL BAD

Arguments of this type bore me, so I usually dismiss them. Upon further reflection, you were probably talking about male Presidents who are associated with women that can embarrass them. If that’s what you’re referring to, it’s a valid parallel, but it wouldn’t be especially relevant or amusing unless Bush had been sexually involved with the woman that I referred to. That wasn’t the case.

If I remember correctly, the woman that I referred to was simply somebody who was in a position to authenticate what the documents said, as opposed to whether or not Dan Rather’s copies were the originals.

Since I’m to some extent German I’d have to say that one million negligently killed are worse than one purposefully killed. Just kidding, Germans don’t lay awake at night worrying about that kind of thing.

I feel bad about the people slaughtered at Cannae and Carthage and Babylon and the like. Being human sometimes can pretty well suck ass.

Note to Pinandpuller: I agree with your conclusion.

Then you probably have an indigo coat or jacket. You can put the extra theses in the pockets.

I had to kill Montoya’s father to get the jacket so I’d better get it dry cleaned first.

Note to Pinandpuller: I’m not going to attempt to outdo you. I just thought I’d try my hand at it.

Note to Carlos Miller:

I see one place where you’d object to the original wording of the Wikipedia page. I’ve added one of the key points from your article. If they haven’t reverted the change, it’s the last paragraph of the section named “The end”. The old version ended with a discussion of felons, and that doesn’t seem appropriate. If technical issues mentioned previously don’t prove to be a problem, I’ll make some additional changes.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “Other cops would have lost their tempers”.

The word taser comes to mind.

Thanks VoR,

I’m heading out now for a bit but I’ll check it out when I get back.

Note to Carlos Miller: O.K.

I did a bit more with the section named “The end”. I’d planned to move more of your article into the Wikipedia page later tonight. The Art Deco revitalization issue that you mentioned should probably go into the Popular Culture section. Additionally, the Exodus and Miami labor market sections need some work.

However, I’ve run into the issue that I warned you about. I’ll do more with the page when I can, but it might be a good idea to call for additional volunteers.

Carlos,

Not really trying to put you on the spot.

I lived in the south for a while. People down there smile all the time, think of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to a lesser extent. There is a saying about being ‘smile f__ked’. Basically you are being put down while they are smiling.

So I understand why some people don’t like what looks like the smile this guy has. But he was a sportscaster for a while and that smile looks about what I’d expect to see on a sportscaster.

I’ll be honest I don’t like Couric at all. Because she’s a commentator and activist that passes off what she does as journalism when for the most part it’s not.

We aren’t going to agree on him soliciting or protesting. I think this boils down to the university not being willing to accept his political speech while allowing the opposite point of view to speak. So we have a private university, that accepts large amounts of goverment funding, who’s property and endowment earnings aren’t taxed, that is ruling on what speech is allowed. I think that’s something to be concerned about from either side.

Also if you really want to be frightened read this new post on Karl Mansoor’s blog “Are you a terrorist ?”, http://bluemustbetrue.com/2009/04/17/are-you-a-terrorist-.aspx and the report he references by the Department of Homeland Security, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

If that’s not enough to make you concerned, what about when Obama ordered the pirates shot. Sounds like we are using the military to fight terrorism. Wasn’t that the problem with Bush?

Exactly how did the boatlift help to revitalize the Art Deco district? Is your article saying that the Mariel boatlift led to crime in the area (which various web pages seem to confirm), which led to Scarface and Miami Vice, which led to interest in the area, which led to investment? Did it happen because of that specific movie and TV show?

Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, “Sounds like we are using the military to fight terrorism. Wasn’t that the problem with Bush?”

You were addressing Mr. Miller, but he said he’s going out for a bit. I’d like to offer you my two cents.

The answer is that the question is a bit broad. Personally, I prefer questions that are more focused.

“Using the military to fight terrorism” means anything that somebody wants it to, because “terrorism” means anything that somebody wants it to. We could be talking about starting wars overseas, or dealing with pirates, or deploying the military inside the United States. Different people have different views on each of these things.

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily contradict the point that you were trying to make.

BTW since Mr. Miller is out, do you happen to know the answer to the questions I raised in post 18?

I was trying to leave it as a broad question.

I just find it interesting how we were sold, “Change you can believe in” and the only apparent real change is the breed of dog the president has.

Yes I know that’s also a broad statement.

Sorry I don’t know much about the Art-Deco other then the look of the places there is very neat.

Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, “the only apparent real change is the breed of dog the president has. Yes I know that’s also a broad statement.”

Not really. You’re making an assertion that’s simpler to debate. Change is easier to pin down than Terrorism.

However, I won’t debate the assertion with you. From one perspective, the assertion is incorrect. From another perspective, it happens to be correct. WRT the kinds of issues that this site is concerned with, I believe that it might be a good idea for people to keep your point in mind. See my two notes to Vidiot on the recent UK anti-photo thread.

Couple of thoughts…

Someones facial expression, like their clothing, should not be used as an indicator as to whether or not they are deserving of being arrested. Only whether they are breaking the law. Standing on a sidewalk in a public university while not blocking passersby does not seem to cross that threshold.

Unbiased journalism does not exist. Period. Everyone brings a value system with them, a bias, wherever they go. It is up to the individual nowadays to take that into account and to find sources that admit their bias but who are FAIR. John Stewart at the Daily Show is a particularly good example.

A particularly nauseous example of bias:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3fvNhdoc0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxdayteapa...

Also, if the guy is selling chachkies who cares? CNN and Fox do the same.

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/#headlines/allshirts/2009/3/1
Fox
http://shop.ecompanystore.com/foxnews/FOX_Help_Returns.asp

Note to Carlos Miller: If you’d like to improve the chances that the Wikipedia changes will survive, review the last two paragraphs of the section named “In the United States”. I’ve gone out on a limb and attempted to address a controversial issue from what Wikipedia refers to as a “neutral POV”.

If I haven’t got it right, feel free to post possible alternate wordings.

BTW the External Links section no longer mentions you by name, but your article is still there.

I don’t think that I’ve done anything significant to the following sections yet: Prelude, Exodus, Popular Culture, See Also, Footnotes, References, or Miami labor market.

Most of the other sections have been cleaned up, at least a bit. Be advised that by the time you see this, people may have reverted some or all of the changes.