Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (18597)	7/31/2002 10:52:21 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

An observation: I have joked with Laz on occasion about his use of labels to classify people politically. The serious point underneath that is that labels tend to get used as a crutch by both sides to ignore the facts and logic (or lack thereof) in the content of the piece itself. The important question about the article from the NYT is: How much of this is true? And the politics of the author in the end cannot answer that question in any meaningful way. I agree that the NYT is liberal; the Wall Street Journal, which I subscribe to, is conservative. But the Journal's features and editorials are not always true or always false, and neither are those of the NYT. Let's hear which parts of the story can be corroborated, and which part are stretches. It is not hard for me to imagine that there are a few crackers among law enforcement, especially in the rural South and Southwest. It is hard for me to imagine that things of that sort are still widespread in America. But those are just my guesses, easily written off as uninformed. Only looking at what actually happened, rather than labelling and denigrating the author of the newspaper story about the events, leads to a productive and meaningful discussion.