Two reasons why it's difficult to take you seriously as someone who can express themselves eloquently: "mediocre person" and "most of us who aren't retarded".
Besides the offensive term "retarded", you imply that people who disagree with you are somehow mentally challenged.
Your use of language supports the idea of the stereotypical engineer: full of facts and no ability to communicate them with eloquence.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
I don't think your problem is with my manner of expressing my ideas, joe, it's with the ideas themselves.
And yes, only retards disagree with me; that should be obvious, unless you...never mind.
joe
· 6 years ago
You're right about that, I do have problems with some of your ideas...but not all, for what it's worth. (i.e. we might agree on the GPL)
What surprises me is that a man of your intelligence would use such an offensive term "retard" in such an obtuse and vulgar way. But then, maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given your immature response above.
I was honestly hoping for some challenge to some of my comments on your site. It was my mistake for hoping. :)
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
I love retards, and I once had a job caring for them, but I know I don't have to worry about offending them because they aren't reading this, at least not in large numbers. I understand they congregate at Atrios and Daily Kos.
But please explain why "developmentally challenged" is more sensitive than "mentally retarded", and esp. why it warrants more keystrokes from someone like me who's touch- typingly defective.
joe
· 6 years ago
"Developmentally challenged" is not even the best term to describe people who are Autistic, Mongoloid, or other forms of mental retardation.
The reason why the word "retard" is offensive is that it's often used as a synonym for idiot, moron, etc., and is usually directed at persons who are not afflicted with a form of decreased mental capacity, in the true medical sense.
I'm not talking about being politically-correct, sir, I'm talking about being crass, rude, of bad taste, and a jerk.
And if you don't see how stating that everyone who disagrees with you is a "retard"... then it sounds like you have some issues that I'm sure a professional could help with.
Believe what you may about your usage of churlish vocabulary, but in the future, my advice to you is that you'll come across as a much more intelligent human if you refrain from using the word "retard".
Tom
· 6 years ago
Joe
You have a point, it is a terribly minor point unless you are carrying the power of the GPA on a campus. In the real world we worry about the power of the point, not the delivery of a point. Give Richard a chance, leave the Ivory tower, and you will realize this is how most people in the real world communicate. Otherwise, stay the heck out of flyover country.
Tom
John Jenkins
· 6 years ago
The language police striketh!! I've always found this sort of thing to be fascinating. First, the assertion that those who disagree are retards is plainly a joke at your expense. The use of the term retard to refer to actual retarded folks is more interesting.
The reason that terms like developmentally challenged were coined was the connotations attatched to words like retard. What's interesting is once you use the new terms, the connotations merely attatch themselves to the new terms.
Take "special" as an example. When I was in school it was becoming fashionable to refer to the mentally retarded as special. So, it became an insult (or joke, depending upon the interlocutor) to refer to someone as "special."
At some point, we stopped recognizing the obvious: that some people aren't as smart as others. Take that for what you will (elitism, whatever), but it's plain fact. Now, everyone is "equally smart" in "different ways". Presumably, this is in an effort to build the ever-necessary self-esteem as if it were itself a cause rather than an effect.
The central idea of the originial post, that we must treat different people differently, is a good and necessary one. You claim to have been seeking a challenge, yet YOUR challenge was one of semantics rather than of substance. Address the argument and perhaps you yourself will receive more substantive responses. You're just being toyed with and, worse yet, you don't even see it. It's called having your buttons pushed.
Chris
· 6 years ago
Someone using the word "Mongoloid" as a synonym for Down Syndrome ought to be careful about accusing someone else of using offensive terms.
Only a small portion of persons with mental retardation have a "medical" condition like Down Syndrome or autism (and it's a stretch to call even those conditions medical). They are people whose difference is that they are on the far left hand side of the Bell curve and it's ridiculous to imply that they have some kind of disease because of that.
And of course the words "idiot" and "moron" are synomyms for "retarded" because they too were once the clinical terms for people with IQs under 70. The fact that you noted the word is usually directed at people who are not clinically MR, suggests that the word is in common use, like idiot and moron and isn't a reference to the MR population. Nevertheless, I'll avoid any possibly offensive terms and just say that your objection is "stupid"
quark2
· 6 years ago
Sheesh! Not really a word I know. ;?) The word 'retard' is not retired, whether approved of or not. Mayhap Mr.Joe is a member of the thought police, and would like to fine and jail for word usage he personally does not approve of. There is enough banning going on in this country now to choke a horse, let's certainly add to it. I see nothing offensive about the above article, it wasn't written in an abusive manner, just straight and to the point. Certainly not politically correct I know, which means it's honest and done with truth. We all know, even if we don't admit it aloud, that politically correct usually means we're talking in sentences made up of lies.
Ushi
· 6 years ago
I applaud you for not being PC, I hate PC. I'm sure he has nothing against mentally challenged people, he is just using a metaphor for your thinking process, meaning comparing your thinking to a mentally challenged person, WITHOUT using like or as.
mike lawson
· 6 years ago
Wow...since we are in the field of semantics, i have a question that has been burning me forever. Perhaps some of you could explain. What make a "swear" word "bad". And why is it "bad"? heh mike lawson (let the trolling begin)
Kim Kuri
· 6 years ago
The term they use in public school systems is multiple disabled. I have two autistic boys. And your analogy shows your ignorance. They are mainstreamed into a nuero-typical class for socialization and taught the basic's in a self-contained classroom. They do not "drag down the curve" because they have an IEP. They are not graded with their peers they are graded individually based on goals and progress throughout the year. Their peers, by the way, learn something from them called tolerance. Which, it appears you failed miserably. And your vertical market theory sucks too. You wrongly assume that I (a retard) want to be spoon-fed my news because someone, somewhere did a market analysis of what they think I'd like to read. God forbid I were to be diverse in any way. Wouldn't it be great if we all came in nice neat little packages with labels so we could be inserted into a nice little category and marketed to death. Should that day come sir you fit nicely into the ignorant, pompous, crass, jerk category. And I'm a little mad at Glenn for linking to your site just to point out Instapundit is a group blog with a strong editor. I wish he had read further then his own name.
Common R. Sense
· 6 years ago
So exactly how many T.V. stations should one individual be allowed to own? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? The problem is when a large corporation buys TV stations they will not give them up, and if a corporation gains enough stations it does not have to worry about competition, because buying and starting a T.V. station is much more difficult than, say starting a new store. If someone does not like Wal-Mart others can easily start other stores. But there is only a finite amount of T.V. stations available, and licsenses and start-up costs are extremely expensive.
JAGCAP
· 6 years ago
Sorry Kim, what their peers frequently "learn" is that when the teacher/aides are distracted because they cannot reliably assume that most of the class shares a fairly broad range of basic abilities, everyone suffers. Sorry about your kids (unless you've adopted the (IMHO) insane position of some deaf kids' parents that deafness is valuable in and of itself, rather than a negative situation), but it makes no sense for the majority to have a significantly suboptimal experience just to satisfy your desire for your kids to set next to the other kids. You're screwing it up for everyone, your own kids not least of all. Idiot.
JAGCAP
· 6 years ago
Sorry Kim, what their peers frequently "learn" is that when the teacher/aides are distracted because they cannot reliably assume that most of the class shares a fairly broad range of basic abilities, everyone suffers. Sorry about your kids (unless you've adopted the (IMHO) insane position of some deaf kids' parents that deafness is valuable in and of itself, rather than a negative situation), but it makes no sense for the majority to have a significantly suboptimal experience just to satisfy your desire for your kids to set next to the other kids. You're screwing it up for everyone, your own kids not least of all. Idiot.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
The new rules still forbid an owner from grabbing more than a third of the TV stations in any but the smallest (one or two stations) markets, so the FCC didn't endorse monopoly by a long shot.
At some point, the FCC should be abolished and we should use the normal anti-trust laws to regulate media monopolies, just as we use them to regulate Microsoft.
anonreader
· 6 years ago
Oh yes let's BAN a blog because you're personally insulted. Let's all ostrasize the ignorant, pompous, crass, jerk. You sit there in anger, throwing stones lady whilst you live in a glass house yourself. Two wrongs never make a right, but you justify name calling/labeling yourself. The article is objective, and you're taking the subject personally as if he knew you have two challenged children and went out of his way to insult you. A conspiracy! But since it's still a 'free' country, and you're unhappy with his style of writing my suggestion to resolve your problem with him is to not read his work. Of course isn't it a good thing, they haven't figured out a way to burn weblogs the way they burn books.
joe
· 6 years ago
Tom: I'm in no Ivory Tower. I am well aware of common usage. That fact does not make the word "retard" in Richard's context less offensive. The words "nigger", "cunt", and "porch monkey" can be argued to be in common usage to make points, too...it doesn't make them eloquent ways of making a point.
Anonreader: Name calling is different than using offensive words. Richard is still a jerk in my mind, and I apologize if you are offended by the word "jerk".
quark2: Thought police, huh ? Right. I was offended, and I expressed it. Not everything is a conspiracy in this world.
JAGCAP: You are the idiot here, sir. Do you know the policy of Mr. Kuri's kids' school ? Do you know his children's individual needs or the size of their classrooms ? Your response sounds so bitter that maybe you have some issues you may need to work out offline as well.
and one final word to Mr. Bennett...if it was not for the FCC in the past, many businesses would have failed, (i.e. the Internet as a result of the regulation of the telcos) many people may have died, (remember why the Titanic was not helped by the ships in its proximity) and the media concentration of the past would have been a whole lot worse. No baby out with the bathwater, please. The recent decision notwithstanding, there *are* good things that the FCC does.
Eric Scheie
· 6 years ago
Retard? What kind of a dumbass sicko would call someone a retard? Take it from a wiseass pervert; adjectives aren't nounable and nouns aren't adjectivable!
Kim Kuri
· 6 years ago
More ignorance and stupid assumptions. My kids are mainstreamed for art, gym, computer classes, and lunch. They each have an aide which is different then a teacher. The aide is there to redirect them and facilitate their learning without impeding the teacher or the class. They learn about math, english, science and social studies in a self contained classroom so as not to be a distraction to the other children. Suboptimal would be if they were sent out of district because it would cost the school 65K per student per year. There are 27 autistic children in our district. And no I didn't have their DNA altered so they would be autistic. I also didn't call for a ban on the blog. The analogy on special education is wrong and not based on fact no matter how you attempt to spin it. Calling someone who doesn't agree with you retarded is offensive. I stand by my comment. No matter what you call me.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
People who disagree with me aren't necessarily retarded; they could just as easily be ignorant, insane, or evil. Autism isn't mental retardation, it's a mental disorder (much like schizophrenia, actually) that can be treated, outgrown, or cured, so anybody trying to win victim points by equating autistics with retards doesn't understand either condition especially well.
Mainstreaming retarded children doesn't help them, and it harms the other children, so I don't believe it's a good idea; but then again, I don't think very bright children should have to share classrooms with normal children either.
The big tragedy with retarded children and all the ADA lawsuits that give them such a large share of education dollars is that "gifted and talented" programs have been gutted to balance the budget, and we benefit as a society from investing more in our best and brightest than in average and sub-average intellects.
And education always has a limited budget, and always will, so we have spend wisely.
Now back to the topic of this thread, before it was hijacked by the PC language police: diversity of opinion vs. diversity of ownership in the media, ahem. In practice, they're contradictory goals, who would have thought?
Kim Kuri
· 6 years ago
Interesting spin. Wrong, but interesting nonetheless. Perhaps if you have a better understanding of the current education system you would understand my point. I am trying to understand your point.
"People who disagree with me aren't necessarily retarded; they could just as easily be ignorant, insane, or evil. Autism isn't mental retardation, it's a mental disorder (much like schizophrenia, actually) that can be treated, outgrown, or cured, so anybody trying to win victim points by equating autistics with retards doesn't understand either condition especially well."
Ignorant? As in vain pretender of knowledge, as in your tag line declaration. Insane? Yes, maybe. I am responding to your comment. Evil :) Well, I could be. I'm sure an email to ARC (Association for Retarded Citizens) with a link of course to your site would help enlighten you as to how offensive your remarks were. Autism is a developmental disability and is the common term for a range of disabilities medically classified as Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD). Schizophrenia is nothing like autism although an abstract from 20 years ago tried and failed to find a correlation. There is no cure for autism and it can't be outgrown. You can keep your victim points. And I believe it was Joe who equated autistics with the retarded. I believe it's you who doesn't understand either condition very well.
"Mainstreaming retarded children doesn't help them, and it harms the other children, so I don't believe it's a good idea; but then again, I don't think very bright children should have to share classrooms with normal children either."
Again you spew information as if you know what your talking about. Our public schools don't operate this way. Third grade is third grade. If a child is disabled he goes into a third grade multiple disabled class. And in my case my school has a self contained classroom. We also have accelerated classes for "gifted children."
"The big tragedy with retarded children and all the ADA lawsuits that give them such a large share of education dollars is that "gifted and talented" programs have been gutted to balance the budget, and we benefit as a society from investing more in our best and brightest than in average and sub-average intellects.And education always has a limited budget, and always will, so we have spend wisely."
I'll give you this, some lawsuits are frivolous and baseless but that is more of a breakdown between parents and school admins. Long before it reaches lawsuit status you go through "due process" A judge determines whether there is merit on either side before it goes higher then that. Public schools are required by law to educate children not give them the best education possible. Sadly that swings both ways. But it is an attempt at a balance.
"Now back to the topic of this thread, before it was hijacked by the PC language police: diversity of opinion vs. diversity of ownership in the media, ahem. In practice, they're contradictory goals, who would have thought?"
Don't blame me for your ill-informed offensive analogy. Toe the line or stick to what you know. As to your thread, I'd rather have freedom and diversity especially if your the one carrying the measuring stick.
Joel Mackey
· 6 years ago
The key to diversity is lowering the regulatory burdens and thereby lowering the barrier to entry. The FCC moves should be judged on how much they lower the barrier to entry not just to large media establishments, but also to upstarts with low levels of capital.
If the rules changes are not removing regulatory items which increase startup costs, as well as allowing single entities to own multiple outlets, then it is just allowing the established media entities to consolidate existing bandwidth, and killing any possibility of diversity of ownership. Which still doesnt necessarily mean bad things for diversity of opinion.
The limiting factor used to be broadcast frequencies, but with the introduction of cable and other technological advances in broadcasting, the limiting factor now is actually content.
Kinda hard to create a new media empire, if your media only broadcasts static...or blank sheets. Lack of content is also one reason we have the scourge of info-mercials to deal with. The cost benefit of broadcasting fresh content, with 30 second adds is such a low ratio, that it is easier to accept content from commercial interests and cheap enough for those commercial interests to profit from the exercise....
This is one path to diversity of opinion. Why couldn't a political interest group develop thier own info-mercial, with items for sale to underwrite the expense, while using the time to dessiminate thier point of view?
The evil media monopoly would not care, as long as the political organization paid the asking price for the minutes of airtime. And if there were discrimination due to the ideological nature of the content, it would land in a judge's lap to decide on a first amendment basis, not a boardroom's table, to decide on a profitability basis.
At this point, what the FCC does with broadcast rights is mostly mute, the internet, and future internet advances will drive the dessimination of diverse opinions. Future regulation of the internet should be strongly opposed. The old media have matured long ago, with the power brokers putting the regulations in place to best serve the powerful's interests. Moving the regulatory deck chairs around wont have a notable effect on the end result.
Old Grouch
· 6 years ago
[Okay, back to topic]
"...in the long run de-regulation will bring more diversity of opinion to media..."
I don't buy this, and here's why: It hasn't worked with "programming" (or technically, "formats") why should we expect it to work with "opinion?" One of the arguments used to sell the first round of deregulation was that multiple-ownership would encourage diverse programming types because revenues from the "stronger" (more popular, higher rated) operations could be used to support the "weaker" ones. (So Clear Channel, for example, could use the "excess" revenues from it's #1 rated pop station to support its jazz or classical station in the same market.) This ignored the reality that publicly-held corporations have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to maximize profits. And that duty militates against the creative or the different: "More of the same" is easier, more predictable, and safer too, because if you fail, at least you failed trying something that worked before (somewhere). (How many classical stations does Clear Channel operate?) Meanwhile, the jazz buffs, or the classical listeners, could try getting together to start their own station, but because of allocation limits in most markets they'd have to buy a frequency from one of the existing owners. And for the chain owners, the potential consequences of selling a frequency outweigh any benefits: Even if one of your stations is an "underperformer," at least it'd not a "competitor." Another, more creative, operator, might find a program mix that would displace your #1 station, and how would you explain that to your shareholders? These same arguments apply to news, opinion, or anything else. So I'll predict that instead of more diversity, we'll get more sameness (because of the drive for maximum revenues which come from maximum "popularity") coupled with poorer quality (caused by lack of competition). The key indicator will be local news coverage. Come back in 5 years and see who's right.
David Perron
· 6 years ago
Good Bog, Richard, are you trolling for trolls?
BTW as far as PC goes, my daughter is "multiply disabled" and can (intellectually, at least) run rings around most of the regulars at Atrios and Hesiod[sic]. Not that that's saying much. Let me rephrase: the school is trying to figure out how to test her for gifted.
All Comments
Besides the offensive term "retarded", you imply that people who disagree with you are somehow mentally challenged.
Your use of language supports the idea of the stereotypical engineer: full of facts and no ability to communicate them with eloquence.
And yes, only retards disagree with me; that should be obvious, unless you...never mind.
What surprises me is that a man of your intelligence would use such an offensive term "retard" in such an obtuse and vulgar way. But then, maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given your immature response above.
I was honestly hoping for some challenge to some of my comments on your site. It was my mistake for hoping. :)
But please explain why "developmentally challenged" is more sensitive than "mentally retarded", and esp. why it warrants more keystrokes from someone like me who's touch- typingly defective.
The reason why the word "retard" is offensive is that it's often used as a synonym for idiot, moron, etc., and is usually directed at persons who are not afflicted with a form of decreased mental capacity, in the true medical sense.
I'm not talking about being politically-correct, sir, I'm talking about being crass, rude, of bad taste, and a jerk.
And if you don't see how stating that everyone who disagrees with you is a "retard"... then it sounds like you have some issues that I'm sure a professional could help with.
Believe what you may about your usage of churlish vocabulary, but in the future, my advice to you is that you'll come across as a much more intelligent human if you refrain from using the word "retard".
You have a point, it is a terribly minor point unless you are carrying the power of the GPA on a campus.
In the real world we worry about the power of the point, not the delivery of a point. Give Richard a chance, leave the Ivory tower, and you will realize this is how most people in the real world communicate. Otherwise, stay the heck out of flyover country.
Tom
The reason that terms like developmentally challenged were coined was the connotations attatched to words like retard. What's interesting is once you use the new terms, the connotations merely attatch themselves to the new terms.
Take "special" as an example. When I was in school it was becoming fashionable to refer to the mentally retarded as special. So, it became an insult (or joke, depending upon the interlocutor) to refer to someone as "special."
At some point, we stopped recognizing the obvious: that some people aren't as smart as others. Take that for what you will (elitism, whatever), but it's plain fact. Now, everyone is "equally smart" in "different ways". Presumably, this is in an effort to build the ever-necessary self-esteem as if it were itself a cause rather than an effect.
The central idea of the originial post, that we must treat different people differently, is a good and necessary one. You claim to have been seeking a challenge, yet YOUR challenge was one of semantics rather than of substance. Address the argument and perhaps you yourself will receive more substantive responses. You're just being toyed with and, worse yet, you don't even see it. It's called having your buttons pushed.
Only a small portion of persons with mental retardation have a "medical" condition like Down Syndrome or autism (and it's a stretch to call even those conditions medical). They are people whose difference is that they are on the far left hand side of the Bell curve and it's ridiculous to imply that they have some kind of disease because of that.
And of course the words "idiot" and "moron" are synomyms for "retarded" because they too were once the clinical terms for people with IQs under 70. The fact that you noted the word is usually directed at people who are not clinically MR, suggests that the word is in common use, like idiot and moron and isn't a reference to the MR population. Nevertheless, I'll avoid any possibly offensive terms and just say that your objection is "stupid"
The word 'retard' is not retired, whether approved of or not. Mayhap Mr.Joe is a member of the thought police, and would like to fine and jail for word usage he personally does not approve of. There is enough banning going on in this country now to choke a horse, let's certainly add to it.
I see nothing offensive about the above article, it wasn't written in an abusive manner, just straight and to the point. Certainly not politically correct I know, which means it's honest and done with truth. We all know, even if we don't admit it aloud, that politically correct usually means we're talking in sentences made up of lies.
I'm sure he has nothing against mentally challenged people, he is just using a metaphor for your thinking process, meaning comparing your thinking to a mentally challenged person, WITHOUT using like or as.
heh
mike lawson
(let the trolling begin)
Sorry about your kids (unless you've adopted the (IMHO) insane position of some deaf kids' parents that deafness is valuable in and of itself, rather than a negative situation), but it makes no sense for the majority to have a significantly suboptimal experience just to satisfy your desire for your kids to set next to the other kids.
You're screwing it up for everyone, your own kids not least of all. Idiot.
Sorry about your kids (unless you've adopted the (IMHO) insane position of some deaf kids' parents that deafness is valuable in and of itself, rather than a negative situation), but it makes no sense for the majority to have a significantly suboptimal experience just to satisfy your desire for your kids to set next to the other kids.
You're screwing it up for everyone, your own kids not least of all. Idiot.
At some point, the FCC should be abolished and we should use the normal anti-trust laws to regulate media monopolies, just as we use them to regulate Microsoft.
Of course isn't it a good thing, they haven't figured out a way to burn weblogs the way they burn books.
Anonreader: Name calling is different than using offensive words. Richard is still a jerk in my mind, and I apologize if you are offended by the word "jerk".
quark2: Thought police, huh ? Right. I was offended, and I expressed it. Not everything is a conspiracy in this world.
JAGCAP: You are the idiot here, sir. Do you know the policy of Mr. Kuri's kids' school ? Do you know his children's individual needs or the size of their classrooms ? Your response sounds so bitter that maybe you have some issues you may need to work out offline as well.
and one final word to Mr. Bennett...if it was not for the FCC in the past, many businesses would have failed, (i.e. the Internet as a result of the regulation of the telcos) many people may have died, (remember why the Titanic was not helped by the ships in its proximity) and the media concentration of the past would have been a whole lot worse. No baby out with the bathwater, please. The recent decision notwithstanding, there *are* good things that the FCC does.
Mainstreaming retarded children doesn't help them, and it harms the other children, so I don't believe it's a good idea; but then again, I don't think very bright children should have to share classrooms with normal children either.
The big tragedy with retarded children and all the ADA lawsuits that give them such a large share of education dollars is that "gifted and talented" programs have been gutted to balance the budget, and we benefit as a society from investing more in our best and brightest than in average and sub-average intellects.
And education always has a limited budget, and always will, so we have spend wisely.
Now back to the topic of this thread, before it was hijacked by the PC language police: diversity of opinion vs. diversity of ownership in the media, ahem. In practice, they're contradictory goals, who would have thought?
"People who disagree with me aren't necessarily retarded; they could just as easily be ignorant, insane, or evil. Autism isn't mental retardation, it's a mental disorder (much like schizophrenia, actually) that can be treated, outgrown, or cured, so anybody trying to win victim points by equating autistics with retards doesn't understand either condition especially well."
Ignorant? As in vain pretender of knowledge, as in your tag line declaration. Insane? Yes, maybe. I am responding to your comment. Evil :) Well, I could be. I'm sure an email to ARC (Association for Retarded Citizens) with a link of course to your site would help enlighten you as to how offensive your remarks were. Autism is a developmental disability and is the common term for a range of disabilities medically classified as Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD). Schizophrenia is nothing like autism although an abstract from 20 years ago tried and failed to find a correlation. There is no cure for autism and it can't be outgrown. You can keep your victim points. And I believe it was Joe who equated autistics with the retarded. I believe it's you who doesn't understand either condition very well.
"Mainstreaming retarded children doesn't help them, and it harms the other children, so I don't believe it's a good idea; but then again, I don't think very bright children should have to share classrooms with normal children either."
Again you spew information as if you know what your talking about. Our public schools don't operate this way. Third grade is third grade. If a child is disabled he goes into a third grade multiple disabled class. And in my case my school has a self contained classroom. We also have accelerated classes for "gifted children."
"The big tragedy with retarded children and all the ADA lawsuits that give them such a large share of education dollars is that "gifted and talented" programs have been gutted to balance the budget, and we benefit as a society from investing more in our best and brightest than in average and sub-average intellects.And education always has a limited budget, and always will, so we have spend wisely."
I'll give you this, some lawsuits are frivolous and baseless but that is more of a breakdown between parents and school admins. Long before it reaches lawsuit status you go through "due process" A judge determines whether there is merit on either side before it goes higher then that. Public schools are required by law to educate children not give them the best education possible. Sadly that swings both ways. But it is an attempt at a balance.
"Now back to the topic of this thread, before it was hijacked by the PC language police: diversity of opinion vs. diversity of ownership in the media, ahem. In practice, they're contradictory goals, who would have thought?"
Don't blame me for your ill-informed offensive analogy. Toe the line or stick to what you know. As to your thread, I'd rather have freedom and diversity especially if your the one carrying the measuring stick.
If the rules changes are not removing regulatory items which increase startup costs, as well as allowing single entities to own multiple outlets, then it is just allowing the established media entities to consolidate existing bandwidth, and killing any possibility of diversity of ownership. Which still doesnt necessarily mean bad things for diversity of opinion.
The limiting factor used to be broadcast frequencies, but with the introduction of cable and other technological advances in broadcasting, the limiting factor now is actually content.
Kinda hard to create a new media empire, if your media only broadcasts static...or blank sheets.
Lack of content is also one reason we have the scourge of info-mercials to deal with. The cost benefit of broadcasting fresh content, with 30 second adds is such a low ratio, that it is easier to accept content from commercial interests and cheap enough for those commercial interests to profit from the exercise....
This is one path to diversity of opinion. Why couldn't a political interest group develop thier own info-mercial, with items for sale to underwrite the expense, while using the time to dessiminate thier point of view?
The evil media monopoly would not care, as long as the political organization paid the asking price for the minutes of airtime. And if there were discrimination due to the ideological nature of the content, it would land in a judge's lap to decide on a first amendment basis, not a boardroom's table, to decide on a profitability basis.
At this point, what the FCC does with broadcast rights is mostly mute, the internet, and future internet advances will drive the dessimination of diverse opinions. Future regulation of the internet should be strongly opposed. The old media have matured long ago, with the power brokers putting the regulations in place to best serve the powerful's interests. Moving the regulatory deck chairs around wont have a notable effect on the end result.
Meanwhile, the jazz buffs, or the classical listeners, could try getting together to start their own station, but because of allocation limits in most markets they'd have to buy a frequency from one of the existing owners. And for the chain owners, the potential consequences of selling a frequency outweigh any benefits: Even if one of your stations is an "underperformer," at least it'd not a "competitor." Another, more creative, operator, might find a program mix that would displace your #1 station, and how would you explain that to your shareholders?
These same arguments apply to news, opinion, or anything else. So I'll predict that instead of more diversity, we'll get more sameness (because of the drive for maximum revenues which come from maximum "popularity") coupled with poorer quality (caused by lack of competition). The key indicator will be local news coverage.
Come back in 5 years and see who's right.
BTW as far as PC goes, my daughter is "multiply disabled" and can (intellectually, at least) run rings around most of the regulars at Atrios and Hesiod[sic]. Not that that's saying much. Let me rephrase: the school is trying to figure out how to test her for gifted.