Daily Sun Article 11/11

[Will]

[q]The bottom line is this: profane language is prohibited at hockey games. If that's a problem, take it up with the legislature -- but don't complain when the University enforces its own rules.[/q]

Bravo, Daily Sun--you're back in my own personal HEROES list.

[David Harding \'72]

Here's another slant on profanity summarizing several of the points that have been made in this thread.
http://members.aol.com/berrymanp/alyrics/fword.html

[nyc94]

I think the Sun misses the point that while the "policy" is clearly stated, most of the complaints on this forum have been about the way it is applied.  There doesn't seem to be a clear standard for the ushers to apply - which is not to say that Linder didn't violate the standard.  If you ask each editor of the Sun and each usher for a clear definition of "profane" you're going to get 20 different answers.

As for the "VILLAINOUS filibusters", filibusters are not unconstitutional, Democrats do them too, and both parties are constantly wasting time and money.  The Sun's editorial staff is always going to be a VILLAIN to me: one sided and rarely with a fact based argument.

[DeltaOne81]

Bill '94 wrote:
As for the "VILLAINOUS filibusters", filibusters are not unconstitutional, Democrats do them too, and both parties are constantly wasting time and money.  The Sun's editorial staff is always going to be a VILLAIN to me: one sided and rarely with a fact based argument.

I don't want to turn this into a political thread, so I'll try to keep this as neutral as possible, but to be fair, the Sun editorial staff never said filibustering was villainous, just this particular one. That's an argument that's defensible and one that many more intelligent political commentators would take up. Agree or disagree, they weren't making the ridiculous blanket generalization that you thought they were.

That said, I dunno what the Sun's staff is doing by including it in a column where they have 3 lines to talk about anything. That doesn't do any political issue justice. And Bill, if you turn to the Sun for in depth, balanced political review, you're barking up the wrong species of plant altogether.



Post Edited (11-15-03 01:28)

[Al DeFlorio]

Bill '94 wrote:
As for the "VILLAINOUS filibusters", filibusters are not unconstitutional, Democrats do them too, and both parties are constantly wasting time and money.  The Sun's editorial staff is always going to be a VILLAIN to me: one sided and rarely with a fact based argument.

As if your right-wing neocon rants here are balanced?::rolleyes::

[nyc94]

DeltaOne, I agree almost entirely with what you said.  I didn't mean to "ridiculously" imply the Sun was picking on all filibusters.  Edit: Since filibusters are an allowable procedural ploy in the Senate - as are the methods the Democrats are using to keep the confirmation votes off of the floor - it seems odd to call the filibuster villainous.  I feel like the Sun is implying that there is something underhanded or illegal about what the Republicans are doing.  Perhaps the Sun should have focused on what I assume is their real issue: that they don't like the judges that have been nominated.  I'm fine with that.  
While their opinion on this one may be defensible, they don't present a defense.  I realize Heroes and Villains is not a true opinion piece but more a summary of the entire week.  Still, the Sun's regular editorials often lack a true argument.  They are usually an opinion with a few cheap shots at the opposition thrown in.  They would be more at home on this forum than in journalism.



Post Edited (11-15-03 14:01)

[marty]

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=350023

::stupid::

 ::help::

[Greg Berge]

To be fair, Harvard's fans have attacked rink profanity in the two most effective ways possible.  Not coming.  Not cheering.

[DeltaOne81]

Bill '94:

DeltaOne, I agree almost entirely with what you said. I didn't mean to "ridiculously" imply the Sun was picking on all filibusters. Edit: Since filibusters are an allowable procedural ploy in the Senate - as are the methods the Democrats are using to keep the confirmation votes off of the floor - it seems odd to call the filibuster villainous. I feel like the Sun is implying that there is something underhanded or illegal about what the Republicans are doing. Perhaps the Sun should have focused on what I assume is their real issue: that they don't like the judges that have been nominated. I'm fine with that.

Well, I think you're going a bit strong - I don't think that the Sun's "villanous" always means illegal or underhanded. For instance, I don't think the whole Lynah thing shows the S.A. president to be either of those things. Just kinda stupid and ridiculous. Now I'm not saying those adjectives apply to the Republican filibuster, I'm just saying that "Villanous" just really means "annoying or stupid or wrong", but not necesssarily all of the above.

The complaint against the Republicans is mainly that they're using 30 hours of filibustering to complain about filibustering. It's like saying "how dare you call me names, you $#!^head!". It's not evil or wrong, it's just in it's way hypocritical. Now I can see how conservative Americans would support the move to 'bring attention' to the matter, but I'd think you can see how liberal Americans hear the Senate Republicans constantly complaining about the democratic filibuster, and then turning to a filibuster of their own as a means to protest it, seems kinda stupid.

Again, tone down your assumption on what "villanous" means, and I think you'll have less of a problem with the Sun's expression of their opinion - given the fact that they don't have room to defend it in that column.

[nyc94]

Agreed.