Location change complete.
Apr. 28th, 2006 11:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptMoved in without a hitch. Other than the desk I thought that would be appearing didn't. Oh, well, have cobbled together method of having connectivity, viewing, and a reasonably ergonomic typing and mousing experience. Much practice in setting up a system where there's no real room is always a plus. Anyway, so I'm now in the new place - the room's smaller, definitely, but no roommate, and the people that are here should be much more awesome. We're just glad to be moving on.
There's a cloud of controversy surrounding the recording and playing of a Spanish-language national anthem . "Nuestro Himno" is intended as a statement of solidarity for immigrants, presumably both those with legal documentation and those without. It also can be interpreted as a way of trying to make sure that immigrants don't assimilate into the American culture (some days, the culture looks pretty bad, so I can see why some might resist).
This article has what I consider a pretty good lesson in media bias today (or at least, in how an article can be constructed to support one position over another while still reporting facts or their close facsimiles) Consider the following quote, given as support for the position that "Nuestro Himno" is a bad thing because it stops assimilation:
"I'm really appalled. . . . We are not a bilingual nation," said George Taplin, director of the Virginia Chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, part of a national countermovement that emphasizes border control and tougher enforcement, and objects to public funding for day-laborer sites. "When people are talking about becoming a part of this country, they should assimilate to the norm that's already here," Taplin said. "What we're talking about here is a sovereign nation with our ideals and our national identity, and that [anthem] is one of the icons of our nation's identity. I believe it should be in English as it was penned."
An interesting choice, certainly, to be the face of the opposition, wouldn't you say? Not a scholar, not a politician, not a figure of any influence, but someone who can probably be rightly dismissed as unimportant and uninformed. Which, I believe, is exactly the point. There are no factual errors in that quote, assuming it is accurate, yet it clearly communicates what the reader should think. Of course, this may be grasping at straws on my part. As for whether I agree with it or not, I'd probably need a good translation and some time to think on it.
Regarding my biases, well, they probably show through, even if I do try to be objective on an issue. I'm confident that my readership is smart enough to recognize them and to consider them in the light of their own knowledge and position. My bias may not be your bias, but between us, we can probably figure out what the truth really is. Although, you should really think, and think hard, on this question when considering bias: What Do You Think of Your Opponents?
In other materials, I remember watching a video some time ago about a reporter whose microphone cord ended up causing a can sculpture to crash in a spectacular fashion. Here's a page of ones that have survived journalists. Shows the power of co-operation, that individually, things seem meaningless, but collectively, they form a nice picture.
One of the hallmarks of a crack-shot whatever, be he lawman, outlaw, sci-fi, western, police drama, whatever,is that he can either shoot a gun out of someone's hand, or shoot a bullet down the barrel of his opponent's gun. Well, in one of those cases of fiction meeting reality, a police officer accomplished the bullet-down-barrel trick. Nice shootin', Tex.
In the "Candid Camera" department, this photo and accompanying caption of the Speaker of the House returning to his SUV after leaving a press conference in a hydrogen-powered car says more than the 1000 words allotted. Any guesses on how long this photographer will be keeping his job before being fired under mysterious circumstances? Of course, it could have been a publicity stunt in the first place, which makes things worse. Has similar overtones to something like the FDA's experts having conflicts of interest on drug approvals. Now, we realize that such conflicts are unavoidable for some, but how many actually declare theirs every time they have to?
Not to mention a story of Homeland Security agents acting more like thugs than officers of the law. If you're going to be charged with law enforcement, thuggery should be on your list of things not to do, especially in front of an elementary school. Gives the bullies ammunition.
So, from my new location, this is all for tonight.
There's a cloud of controversy surrounding the recording and playing of a Spanish-language national anthem . "Nuestro Himno" is intended as a statement of solidarity for immigrants, presumably both those with legal documentation and those without. It also can be interpreted as a way of trying to make sure that immigrants don't assimilate into the American culture (some days, the culture looks pretty bad, so I can see why some might resist).
This article has what I consider a pretty good lesson in media bias today (or at least, in how an article can be constructed to support one position over another while still reporting facts or their close facsimiles) Consider the following quote, given as support for the position that "Nuestro Himno" is a bad thing because it stops assimilation:
"I'm really appalled. . . . We are not a bilingual nation," said George Taplin, director of the Virginia Chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, part of a national countermovement that emphasizes border control and tougher enforcement, and objects to public funding for day-laborer sites. "When people are talking about becoming a part of this country, they should assimilate to the norm that's already here," Taplin said. "What we're talking about here is a sovereign nation with our ideals and our national identity, and that [anthem] is one of the icons of our nation's identity. I believe it should be in English as it was penned."
An interesting choice, certainly, to be the face of the opposition, wouldn't you say? Not a scholar, not a politician, not a figure of any influence, but someone who can probably be rightly dismissed as unimportant and uninformed. Which, I believe, is exactly the point. There are no factual errors in that quote, assuming it is accurate, yet it clearly communicates what the reader should think. Of course, this may be grasping at straws on my part. As for whether I agree with it or not, I'd probably need a good translation and some time to think on it.
Regarding my biases, well, they probably show through, even if I do try to be objective on an issue. I'm confident that my readership is smart enough to recognize them and to consider them in the light of their own knowledge and position. My bias may not be your bias, but between us, we can probably figure out what the truth really is. Although, you should really think, and think hard, on this question when considering bias: What Do You Think of Your Opponents?
In other materials, I remember watching a video some time ago about a reporter whose microphone cord ended up causing a can sculpture to crash in a spectacular fashion. Here's a page of ones that have survived journalists. Shows the power of co-operation, that individually, things seem meaningless, but collectively, they form a nice picture.
One of the hallmarks of a crack-shot whatever, be he lawman, outlaw, sci-fi, western, police drama, whatever,is that he can either shoot a gun out of someone's hand, or shoot a bullet down the barrel of his opponent's gun. Well, in one of those cases of fiction meeting reality, a police officer accomplished the bullet-down-barrel trick. Nice shootin', Tex.
In the "Candid Camera" department, this photo and accompanying caption of the Speaker of the House returning to his SUV after leaving a press conference in a hydrogen-powered car says more than the 1000 words allotted. Any guesses on how long this photographer will be keeping his job before being fired under mysterious circumstances? Of course, it could have been a publicity stunt in the first place, which makes things worse. Has similar overtones to something like the FDA's experts having conflicts of interest on drug approvals. Now, we realize that such conflicts are unavoidable for some, but how many actually declare theirs every time they have to?
Not to mention a story of Homeland Security agents acting more like thugs than officers of the law. If you're going to be charged with law enforcement, thuggery should be on your list of things not to do, especially in front of an elementary school. Gives the bullies ammunition.
So, from my new location, this is all for tonight.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-29 04:14 am (UTC)Homeland Security knows it's only got 3 years max before it's completely dismantled, they're getting their fun in now.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-29 02:33 pm (UTC)