netmouse | (no subject)

Who gets to decide that something is a lie?

There would be ZERO political advertising if that were implemented.

Which might not bad a bad thing...

Perhaps just one of those floating icons in the corner clearly labeling it as fiction?

You're over-engineering this.

How about television is not allowed to anything to do with politics. Let's start there and see how it goes.

(Dammit do NOT get me started!)

:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Precisely. You'd need to have some government agency in charge of enforcing truth in broadcasting. Consider what the Bush administration would have done with that kind of authority.

Hell yea... some things are "judgement" calls where they're playing with statistics but quite often they make statements that are blatantly false and at the very least these need to be removed.

Of course I also believe to run for an elected office you should have to pass an examination on both knowledge and ethics related to the office...then everyone who passes both with 80%+ is granted the exact same advertising and the like options... as in all get 8 commercials...

Cut down on the whole buying elections as it happens now.

Wouldn't help. "Many people believe Barack Obama is a muslim" is true. And then you go into the list of reasons why they believe that, and many of them are true too. You can easily leave people with the impression you want without resorting to lies.

And giving an agency the authority to preview and decide is pretty dangerous, as others have pointed out.

If you let the opposing team take it to court, there are time issues, since ads are mostly run pretty close to the election.

Then there's the pre-emptive challenge of your opponent's ad, which if you're lucky you get blocked for a while (court order) until the case can be decided, and even if they win you've disrupted their schedule and cost them money.

I'm of the opinion that the restraints on political speech we already have are unconstitutional. And I don't really want to re-open the first amendment and try to rewrite it; I don't think I'd like the result.

Yes, rich people who choose to use their money that way can have more impact on public policy than poor people. Many attempts to fix that end up preventing ordinary people from joining together to make their voices heard.

Put your effort into cleaning up lobbying, is my advice; that's a much more important way in which people with money get disproportionate power.

Presumably the courts, in the end; same as in a libel case.

We already have plenty of restraints on speech... especially when dealing with television... I happen to believe that a modicum of restraint on political speech of any of it is a lot more important than making sure little johnny doesn't hear the fuck or see a boob.

I'm not saying to run everything through a screener but even something as "simple" as at least at the presidential level all "commercials" must be submitted with a fact check sheet backing up their assertations. Sure, they can spin a lot of things...but I don't want to really stop things just make it more difficult for out right lies.

I think lobbying would clear up if the people in power actually knew about the issues and had knowledge of things.

The root problems here are that:

The truth is generally nuanced, and doesn't fit in a sound bite, but many Americans won't pay attention to anything longer.

The public doesn't want to spend the time to check the facts, and doesn't sufficiently punish the liars.

One step toward improving the system would be for a site like FactCheck.org to offer a trademarked "Spin-free" logo for ads that are factually accurate. I suspect that a candidate who submitted their ads to that kind of inspection would gain some ethical high ground. If the public rewarded them for it, it could dramatically change the calculations of the political advisers who do these things.

On every TV I've ever owned, there's a little button somewhere that is intended to be used to turn the TV on and off. Exercise your right to USE that little button! Turn the thing OFF and I guarantee you won't be irritated by the ads any more. That's what *I* do! And my dogs LOVE me for it! ;-)

(It works for crappy programming too!) ;-D

And think of the electricity you'll save if you follow the suggestion on my blog and put all the "entertainment" appliances on a powerstrip and just turn the whole battery of stuff off - it all has that "instant-on" circuitry that just GOBBLES electricity even when you're not using it!

I sometimes wonder how much happier I'd be if I ignored politics and especially economics...

MUSLIM? Oh. *I* thought they were saying he wears MUSLIN! - and I have to respond that I'm not an expert on clothing, and so couldn't say...

The public doesn't want to spend the time to check the facts, and doesn't sufficiently punish the liars.

You hit the nail on the head there. Voters who don't want to do their homework and like to be spoon-fed someone else's version of the truth are destroying this country.

I don't have TV. Well, I have a television set, but it's connected to my DVD player.

These ads don't bother me because they're cluttering MY airwaves--they bother me because people like my mother-in-law see them and swallow them hook, line, and sinker, and don't bother to take the extra time to double-check ANY candidates' claims.

Not any more. Welcome to the Republican age of de-regulation. (Started back in the Reagan years, I believe)

I suspect that a candidate who submitted their ads to that kind of inspection would gain some ethical high ground.

I'm more apt to suspect that if one candidate did and another didn't, it would take all of an hour for the "fact checker" authority to be painted as political and completely written off by the opposing side.

I haven't watched TV for 6 years. However, that doesn't stop me from being peeved at such effects as are going on in California right now, where a proposition on the ballot is being *completely* misrepresented in television advertising, and such a tactic appears to be working.

I think lobbying would clear up if the people in power actually knew about the issues and had knowledge of things.

Because then they would turn down free home improvements, "fact finding" vacations with their families and nice dinners on the lobbyists' tab?

On every TV I've ever owned, there's a little button somewhere that is intended to be used to turn the TV on and off.

Hehe... "We had that button installed for you so that you could turn the TV *ON* and *OFF*. Not so you could throw TV Raves!"

Yep. The one referenced here (https://secure.ga3.org/03/caequalpac_match/nG1d9KSFqNWOu?), that brings up gay marriage being taught in schools - a topic that does not appear in proposition 8, and churches losing their tax exemption, which has to do with churches doing political campaigning - nothing in the proposition forces churches to hold any particular stance toward gays but as discussed here (http://www.dailytrojan.com/opinion/prop_8_causes_no_harm), it does suggest that churches that do this sort of thing (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/latter-day-saints/71457-church-tax-exempt-status-prop-8-a.html) are not staying within activities that their designation as a church was designed for.

Oh no not at all... that is a factor of ethics... which is sorely lacking in all of our "leaders."

But we have people sitting on the finance committee who have no business knowledge/economic background/etc... as just one example.

Heaven forbid if we elect people who are knowledgeable about the issues they speak about... for President we elect a economics/international relations expert... just as an example.

Why do we elect lawyers? They make up a larger proportion of law makers...it makes no sense... the people expected to make the laws are the same people who stand to make the most out of making the laws as confusing and out of touch of the common people....

how about... before any law can be sent to the president we add another layer in their... a random body drawn from a pool of people say 7... every 6 months who read each law... if they don't understand it....not agree just understand it and be able to read it... this group of 7 must include 1 person from 6 geographically different regions and 1 person under the age of 16. Laws should be understandable by a 12 year old imo.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but... I'm going to defend lawyers as lawmakers. Because legal language really is kind of a specialty. It's a specialty that can be learned (and usually is, over the course of a legislative career), but it isn't as simply as speaking, and due to the nature of what's at stake, a law can't always be written for a 12 year olds understanding. There are historical cases, though rare, of life-or-death court decisions hinging entirely on the placement of a comma, and lawyers are those who have devoted themselves to the study of the logic, the languague, and the tradition in which legal phrasing will be interpretted and - therefore - really are the most qualified to draft law.

turns out I was misreading things and the threat of lost tax exemption was just a speculation, not something in the proposition either...

All proposition 8 does is, as the title indicates, it Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, adding a line to the state constitution saying that the state only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman. It says nothing about what churches, individuals, or schools, may or may not do.

this is where I disagree... of course I look at things differently... I'm not saying you're wrong..because in the view that you're taking... you are very much correct.

But I look at things and say...hey this is broken... this is how it should be... I really don't care that this is how things work and because of all the history behind it... laws have gotten to the point that they need to be done by specialized people...

but sit back... and ask yourself... should a life or death decision come down to a comma? Or should it come down to a person using their judgement... someone ethical and knowledgeable?

Of course, I also believe I can create a society where people are ethical, loving, understanding and open minded... it will never happen :( but i still prefer my world. :)

Churches are not required to perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples; that was written in to the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the previous ban on gay marriage. The text of the ruling says: "Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

So, five years after the election, the courts would decide that some ads shouldn't be allowed to air any longer.

So the legislators should hire lawyers as advisors/drafters. I have no problem with that; hiring technical experts for their expertise is a good thing.

But the fact that someone is supposedly good at understanding (or writing) laws isn't any reason to believe they're good at deciding which laws should be written.

And the next time I see an Income Tax bill that isn't shortly followed by a Technical Corrections Act will be the first. So much for their ability to write laws correctly.

No church is required to perform a marriage for anybody they don't want to.

They can refuse on the grounds that the applicants aren't of the proper religion (or didn't follow some ritual), or pretty much any other grounds they choose.

Oh... "in California" - ummmm, okay. That explains a lot. I mean, "California?" Ummmhummmm.

{Looks around and doesn't see anyone. Shrugs and slowly walks away with his hands in his pockets.}

;-D

"TV Raves"??? Are those anything like french fries? Or cheese puffs. (I like the crunchy ones!)

I prefer your world as well, don't get me wrong. And the current system *IS* broken. As for the comma... hard to say. The case I'm referencing was (if I recall... it's been a while) a case of treason in WWI or WWII Britain, and the law in question was atleast 150+ years old. It was all really a technicality and the guy was obviously guilty as hell of treason. The only question left was whether or not to hang him.

See the question of the comma really comes down to one of repeatability. We do need legal language so that the law can, figuratively speaking, be written in stone. While I applaud your judgement ideal, I can't see it working in a republic of 300+ million people. Because the question becomes WHICH people are going to be doing that deciding? People who think abortion is murder under ALL circumstances, and those who feel otherwise should be locked away? Someone who feels that everything is okay, as long as you feel sorry afterwards? Someone who thinks that people who aren't his/her color aren't REALLY human beings? Someone who thinks animal lives are more worthwhile than human lives and, therefore, more worth protecting? They are all extremes, but they are people, and they are all people in this country, and they could all be the people in question, exercising their judgement. I'd rather have that comma in place so that it atleast gives a very strong guidepost for them to work from *AND* accountability from higher courts to answer to.

True. A well-written law and a "good" law are far from the same things. Unfortunately, mileage varies on what people consider a "good" law. Which is pretty much the entire point of a democracy.

And while no, being able to understand legal language DOESN'T mean you are going to be good at deciding while laws "should" be written (in your - or my opinion), it does mean that between two representatives, both of whom are closer to YOUR opinion of which law is good, the one with the better understanding of legal language and systems will be the one who more agrees with you AND is more likely to actually GET STUFF DONE. Which is why there is a disproportionate number of lawyers IN the Congress. That and, ya know... it's a bootstraps situation of law and politics and connections.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pack the Congress with lawyers. I want there to be lawyers and businessmen and rabble rousing populists with nothing going for them but a quick wit and a passionate constituency. I want them all in there, punching it out and playing nice, making friends and making enemies, helping each other and spiting each other. Because, ideally, they are representing the citizenry and, when the dust settles, the law that exists and is ratified should resemble something that is in keeping with our constitution and is also something that MOST of us kinda like and ALL of us (or almost all of us) can live with.

We had a similar problem here - Stephen Harper kept talking about how Stephane Dion was going to raise taxes with his "Green Shift", but always omitted the bit about offsetting reductions in personal income tax to compensate. So that would be a lie by omission, which is almost as bad.