sPh wrote:

"Personally I think traditional field organizing
died in 1980 when the mass migration to the
suburbs/exurbs hit the tipping point. It is
the "Bowling Alone" thesis as applied to politics:
people stay at home and watch videos (or post to blogs).
They don't participate in membership organizations."

Well I half agree.

I agree that people who stay at home and watch
TV are much less likely to be participate in political
organizations or anything else.

http://www.tvsmarter.com/documents/democracy.html

But I do think that people who stay at home and post to
blogs are more politically engaged than the TV watchers,
although perhaps not as much as those involved in
face-to-face organizations.

http://www.newpolitics.net/node/158?full_report=1

Getting off the couch is better for our physical
health, our mental health, and our civil health.

Posted at August 29, 2007 9:48 PM in response to The War for Field Organizing

I'd just like to point out that the U.S.
already has school choice. People can choose
which school to send their kids to by choosing
where to live (much easier for middle class
parents). Of course it's not much of a choice
since just about all publics schools follow
the philosophy of all students in the same grade
going at pretty much the same pace. Also all
public schools have to deal with "No child left
behind". So if a parent wants anything more
exotic such as Waldorf, or Montessori, etc
they either have to find a charter school,
voucher school or pay for private school.

Also, for over a hundred years Belgium
has supported school choice, and as far as
I know they haven't turned into a right-wing
hell-hole.

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=44&story_id=1430

For what it's worth, I don't believe that the
problems with the U.S. school system is the
fault of the public schools. Instead the problem
is that kids are watching (on average) over
four hours of TV per day. Of course they
are going to find school and studying *boring*.
Also since TV has usurped reading as a main
form of entertainment in the home, reading
skills are quite naturally deteriorating.

Just imagine if we had a real national push
to reducing TV watching by kids. There would no
longer be a need to turn kids into little homework machines, and teachers could actually concentrate on teaching instead of just trying to survive
the day.

For a comparison of TV versus reading see:

http://www.tvsmarter.com/

Posted at July 10, 2007 5:07 AM in response to In Which I Outsource to Prof. Martin Carnoy

What about respect for the families of the victims.
Couldn't they have at least waited some time before
making the videos and writing available on the
internet for those who want to see them.

Now, very shortly after the murders this video
is being shown over and over again on TV where
it could very easily be inadvertently seen by
a victims family or friend, causing yet more
grief.

Or does the public's right to be entertained
trump all ? Note the video is available on the
internet, it did not need to be broadcast over
and over again.

Posted at April 22, 2007 12:54 PM in response to The Murderer and the Media

"It's certainly not a serious death threat
in the context of a mean spirited internet
spat between IT geeks on a tech forum."

Whether or not a death threat is *meant*
seriously or not is irrelevant. Why?
Because no one can psychically *know*
whether someone is serious or not.

See:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/18/qc-hudsonthreats.html

http://www.blogherald.com/2005/05/04/minnesota-students-charged-over-blog-death-threats/

http://www.freemuse.org/sw13662.asp

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/12/ashes_email_death_threat/

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid41834.asp

So whether a death threat is meant as
satire, clever criticism, sophomoric taunt
or as deadly serious, it doesn't matter,
it's still illegal.

It's like being on an airplane and making
jokes about bombs. A joke or not, you're
still going to be arrested and charged.

Note, there is more than one issue here.
Any death threat is illegal, but how frightening
a death threat is another issue.

For example, one comment posed on a blog
saying "I hope you trip and break your neck"
is much less frightening than numerous
comments saying things like ""fuck off
you boring slut... i hope someone
slits your throat and cums down your gob"

The latter is obviously the product of
a sick and creepy mind. And it is sick
and creepy people who are more likely
to actually attack and/or kill.

Posted at April 18, 2007 1:28 AM in response to What's with the sexualized threats against women?

kozmik said:

"There are already laws on the books against
death threats, or any threats, even inferred
threats, but this did NOT QUALIFY and the
context was just a nasty internet spat, which
Siera was certainly involved in and egging on."

Death threats or not, see for yourself:

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/as_i_type_this_.html

Including:

"fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone
slits your throat and cums down your gob"

Note, under the law saying
"Someone should kill you"
is the same as saying
"I am going to kill you".

Note, a good summary of the Sierra situation
at Wire magazine:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/04/kathysierra

Posted at April 16, 2007 10:07 PM in response to What's with the sexualized threats against women?