Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always wondered who paid FAUX NOISE to hire there stellar (as in singularity) collection of commentators. You guys are so much fun to play with I cannot resist. Thanks for bringing Mr. Sunstein to my attention.
I think it's more than just hiring MSM journalists.
It's getting a message to the collective and consensus think.
Health care being a "right" is one example I can think of. The news was full of sympathy stories prior to health care bill being passed. People were told that health care was a right. Bill got passed and now ..nothing in the news anymore. Now it's time to move on to the next agenda item.
Tell a group of people something over and over and people start to take it as fact.
There is a great difference between discussing economics and discussing politics. The extremes of economics are State owned and planned economies and Real, not corrupted, privately owned Free Market economies free of any government regulation, direction or protection. Neither work very well.
The centralized planned economies fail because the planning process is corrupted by the planners personal aggrandizement. The Free Market economies are destroyed by businesses removing the Free part by setting up cartels and monopolies.
Politics, and the governments they create, suffer similar fates. The extremes, Feudal Aristocracies and direct Democracy, cannot provide for the protection of the mass of the population from bandits or dictators.
The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.
Here is your thinking from the Progressive "I know better than you"
Seriously! And you guys wonder why they trash the Constitution.
The author of your piece is (oh surely not deliberately) mangling the meaning of the essay. The author says "the US president and those around him." The essay is talking about the president -- not necessarily Obama -- and the agencies in theexecutive branch of government.
(At the same time, "...Congress should be required to speak unambiguously; executive interpretation of statutory ambiguities is not sufficient.")
"When courts resolve genuine ambiguities, often they must rely on policy judgments of their own.Those judgments must be made by the executive [branch], not the judiciary [branch]....the shift from independent judicial judgment to respect for reasonable interpretations by the executive rests on the same realistic commitments that led the federal judiciary to abandon 'general' federal common law in favor of respect for state law."
By "executive" he means, and explains that he means, the agencies in the exec branch of government, not the President-King and his buddies, as your dumbed-down source seems to want you to believe.
Dont you feel insulted by articles that lie to you like that one did? People really shouldnt rely on them for their original sources of news.
The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to Sunstein. "There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.
Here is your thinking from the Progressive "I know better than you"
Seriously! And you guys wonder why they trash the Constitution.
A good piece on Cass Sunstein demonized by the RW media:
"Nominated to a White House job, legal scholar Cass Sunstein has become a victim of the very thing he writes books about: conspiracy theories and paranoid rumors."
The author of your piece is (oh surely not deliberately) mangling the meaning of the essay. The author says "the US president and those around him." The essay is talking about the president -- not necessarily Obama -- and the agencies in theexecutive branch of government.
(At the same time, "...Congress should be required to speak unambiguously; executive interpretation of statutory ambiguities is not sufficient.")
"When courts resolve genuine ambiguities, often they must rely on policy judgments of their own.Those judgments must be made by the executive [branch], not the judiciary [branch]....the shift from independent judicial judgment to respect for reasonable interpretations by the executive rests on the same realistic commitments that led the federal judiciary to abandon 'general' federal common law in favor of respect for state law."
By "executive" he means, and explains that he means, the agencies in the exec branch of government, not the President-King and his buddies, as your dumbed-down source seems to want you to believe.
Dont you feel insulted by articles that lie to you like that one did? People really shouldnt rely on them for their original sources of news.
I quoted Cass Sunstein's own words. He, himself is the source. Now what?
"Nominated to a White House job, legal scholar Cass Sunstein has become a victim of the very thing he writes books about: conspiracy theories and paranoid rumors."
Just more propaganda.
His own words are not some made up propaganda. There is a big difference.
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s anti-terrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups" where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of secret government payments to outside commentators, who are then held out as independent experts; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed." Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a trade off between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.
I quoted Cass Sunstein's own words. He, himself is the source. Now what?
You also paraphrased the article's implication ("the U.S. president and those around him") on which you're basing the thread. I showed you where your conclusion which the article led you draw to was erroneous. Now what?
You also paraphrased the article's implication ("the U.S. president and those around him") on which you're basing the thread. I showed you where your conclusion which the article led you draw to was erroneous. Now what?
Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. 119
Sunstein, Cass R. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Chapter 15: Privatizing Marriage: Caravan Books. 2008, pp. 215–228
Those are his own words, quoted from his book.
Try harder!
His own words are not some made up propaganda. There is a big difference.
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s anti-terrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups" where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
And you think that's a bad thing, at least when Cass Sunstein talks about it. Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of secret government payments to outside commentators, who are then held out as independent experts; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed." Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a trade off between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.
So trying to persuade with words and ideas is bad. Skipping the dialogue and going straight to the bombing is better?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-- and the agencies in the executive branch of government.
