By thinkbeforeyouspeak, unverified — Wed, 12/22/2010 - 09:48
'Apologies for the triplicate post. The site froze when I tried to upload and so I hit "save" a second time and refreshed the page. Apparently, that was sufficient to post it two extra times. Oy.
By thinkbeforeyouspeak, unverified — Wed, 12/22/2010 - 09:37
The Deep Throat analogy is flawed. Deep Throat was a confidential source; "confidential" means that he was still known to the reporter (Bob Woodward) who reported on the information acquired from Deep Throat (later in life known to be FBI Associate Director Mark Felt). Moreover, Deep Throat didn't write in the Washington Post; his information only made it into the paper after being filtered by the reporters. Confidential sources are indeed valuable to journalists, who fight doggedly to protect the identities of their sources. In turn, they are valuable to the public who is better informed as a consequence of the investigative journalism that confidential sources can enable. But there is some accountability for the confidential source, since the source is known to the journalist, who can attempt to corroborate claims made by the source and who can, as I suggested, filter out inflammatory statements that are of no informative value. The Sun Journal's new policy addresses a completely different matter: anonymous online comments. As I understand it, it is designed to prevent "factually incorrect, reckless and mean-spirited" comments from entering into the online discourse, as they now can and with little if any accountability for the poster. Perhaps some of you who are libertarian absolutists will object to that, but you are incorrect in suggesting that this policy change will jeopardize would-be whistleblowers. It won't. To be sure, if you want the Sun Journal to become a more robust source for investigative journalism, then perhaps you want to lobby them to amend their prohibition on unidentified sources in their reporting, but that's a different issue. This particular policy change will have no impact on any local Deep Throats, and so that argument is a red herring.
By thinkbeforeyouspeak, unverified — Wed, 12/22/2010 - 09:33
The Deep Throat analogy is flawed. Deep Throat was a confidential source; "confidential" means that he was still known to the reporter (Bob Woodward) who reported on the information acquired from Deep Throat (later in life known to be FBI Associate Director Mark Felt). Moreover, Deep Throat didn't write in the Washington Post; his information only made it into the paper after being filtered by the reporters. Confidential sources are indeed valuable to journalists, who fight doggedly to protect the identities of their sources. In turn, they are valuable to the public who is better informed as a consequence of the investigative journalism that confidential sources can enable. But there is some accountability for the confidential source, since the source is known to the journalist, who can attempt to corroborate claims made by the source and who can, as I suggested, filter out inflammatory statements that are of no informative value. The Sun Journal's new policy addresses a completely different matter: anonymous online comments. As I understand it, it is designed to prevent "factually incorrect, reckless and mean-spirited" comments from entering into the online discourse, as they now can and with little if any accountability for the poster. Perhaps some of you who are libertarian absolutists will object to that, but you are incorrect in suggesting that this policy change will jeopardize would-be whistleblowers. It won't. To be sure, if you want the Sun Journal to become a more robust source for investigative journalism, then perhaps you want to lobby them to amend their prohibition on unidentified sources in their reporting, but that's a different issue. This particular policy change will have no impact on any local Deep Throats, and so that argument is a red herring.
By thinkbeforeyouspeak, unverified — Thu, 09/30/2010 - 09:23
Citygirl, you are entitled to your opinions, just as the rest of us are entitled to point out how ill-informed they are. You suggest that because Obama has held two Muslim prayers at the White House, that makes him a Muslim. Well, even if he has held such prayers (I don't know whether you're right or not, but it doesn't matter), what you are ignoring is this. He's also held seders--Passover dinners--at the White House and during his 2008 campaign. Does that make him a Jew too? The suggestion that he's Muslim is a lie, and the suggestion that it's somehow bad to be a Muslim is a smear on the millions who practice the faith. Shame on you for your ignorance.
By thinkbeforeyouspeak, unverified — Tue, 09/21/2010 - 11:32
Sir (and I presume from your comments about female military service, and your own, that you are male),
My objection to the substance of your comment is not as simplistic as whether your opinion is "offensive" or not. My objection is that your opinion is poorly thought out and badly argued. For example, you say that your "reason" for being uncomfortable with the possibility of entering combat with fellow soldiers who are gay is that you "feel" that "in some way they may not be mentally sound or complete." This is not reason at all. You are making a generalization about an entire class of individuals, and you are generalizing from nothing, as best I can tell. In other words, you have no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, if the "many gay people" whom you have actually met are some of the most "decent, honest down to earth people" you know, then it is striking that you can leap from that evidence to the claim that gays are somehow deficient. This is not reason. It is emotion and prejudice (which literally means "prejudgment") masquerading as reason. I presume that your military service was honorable, and on that presumption I salute you. But your opinion on this matter is not based in rational evaluation of evidence, and I hope that other readers therefore reject it. If individuals who are gay are willing to serve their country in battle, and if those individuals prove in training that they are capable of doing so, what reason could there be to treat them differently than their straight counterparts? I find myself in agreement with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (i.e., the highest ranking military officer in the U.S. armed forces). As he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens...[A]llowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03military.html)
thinkbeforeyouspeak's Comments
Sorry
'Apologies for the triplicate post. The site froze when I tried to upload and so I hit "save" a second time and refreshed the page. Apparently, that was sufficient to post it two extra times. Oy.
Fixit, your comparison fails you.
The Deep Throat analogy is flawed. Deep Throat was a confidential source; "confidential" means that he was still known to the reporter (Bob Woodward) who reported on the information acquired from Deep Throat (later in life known to be FBI Associate Director Mark Felt). Moreover, Deep Throat didn't write in the Washington Post; his information only made it into the paper after being filtered by the reporters. Confidential sources are indeed valuable to journalists, who fight doggedly to protect the identities of their sources. In turn, they are valuable to the public who is better informed as a consequence of the investigative journalism that confidential sources can enable. But there is some accountability for the confidential source, since the source is known to the journalist, who can attempt to corroborate claims made by the source and who can, as I suggested, filter out inflammatory statements that are of no informative value. The Sun Journal's new policy addresses a completely different matter: anonymous online comments. As I understand it, it is designed to prevent "factually incorrect, reckless and mean-spirited" comments from entering into the online discourse, as they now can and with little if any accountability for the poster. Perhaps some of you who are libertarian absolutists will object to that, but you are incorrect in suggesting that this policy change will jeopardize would-be whistleblowers. It won't. To be sure, if you want the Sun Journal to become a more robust source for investigative journalism, then perhaps you want to lobby them to amend their prohibition on unidentified sources in their reporting, but that's a different issue. This particular policy change will have no impact on any local Deep Throats, and so that argument is a red herring.
Your comparison fails you
The Deep Throat analogy is flawed. Deep Throat was a confidential source; "confidential" means that he was still known to the reporter (Bob Woodward) who reported on the information acquired from Deep Throat (later in life known to be FBI Associate Director Mark Felt). Moreover, Deep Throat didn't write in the Washington Post; his information only made it into the paper after being filtered by the reporters. Confidential sources are indeed valuable to journalists, who fight doggedly to protect the identities of their sources. In turn, they are valuable to the public who is better informed as a consequence of the investigative journalism that confidential sources can enable. But there is some accountability for the confidential source, since the source is known to the journalist, who can attempt to corroborate claims made by the source and who can, as I suggested, filter out inflammatory statements that are of no informative value. The Sun Journal's new policy addresses a completely different matter: anonymous online comments. As I understand it, it is designed to prevent "factually incorrect, reckless and mean-spirited" comments from entering into the online discourse, as they now can and with little if any accountability for the poster. Perhaps some of you who are libertarian absolutists will object to that, but you are incorrect in suggesting that this policy change will jeopardize would-be whistleblowers. It won't. To be sure, if you want the Sun Journal to become a more robust source for investigative journalism, then perhaps you want to lobby them to amend their prohibition on unidentified sources in their reporting, but that's a different issue. This particular policy change will have no impact on any local Deep Throats, and so that argument is a red herring.
The problem is this:
Citygirl, you are entitled to your opinions, just as the rest of us are entitled to point out how ill-informed they are. You suggest that because Obama has held two Muslim prayers at the White House, that makes him a Muslim. Well, even if he has held such prayers (I don't know whether you're right or not, but it doesn't matter), what you are ignoring is this. He's also held seders--Passover dinners--at the White House and during his 2008 campaign. Does that make him a Jew too? The suggestion that he's Muslim is a lie, and the suggestion that it's somehow bad to be a Muslim is a smear on the millions who practice the faith. Shame on you for your ignorance.
...nothing more than feelings
Sir (and I presume from your comments about female military service, and your own, that you are male),
My objection to the substance of your comment is not as simplistic as whether your opinion is "offensive" or not. My objection is that your opinion is poorly thought out and badly argued. For example, you say that your "reason" for being uncomfortable with the possibility of entering combat with fellow soldiers who are gay is that you "feel" that "in some way they may not be mentally sound or complete." This is not reason at all. You are making a generalization about an entire class of individuals, and you are generalizing from nothing, as best I can tell. In other words, you have no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, if the "many gay people" whom you have actually met are some of the most "decent, honest down to earth people" you know, then it is striking that you can leap from that evidence to the claim that gays are somehow deficient. This is not reason. It is emotion and prejudice (which literally means "prejudgment") masquerading as reason. I presume that your military service was honorable, and on that presumption I salute you. But your opinion on this matter is not based in rational evaluation of evidence, and I hope that other readers therefore reject it. If individuals who are gay are willing to serve their country in battle, and if those individuals prove in training that they are capable of doing so, what reason could there be to treat them differently than their straight counterparts? I find myself in agreement with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (i.e., the highest ranking military officer in the U.S. armed forces). As he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens...[A]llowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03military.html)