--Enigmatic
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
If you are going to spend all that time creating a spoof site, at least avoid repeating the same article titles over and over to the bottom of the page.
A little effort is all I ask, people of the internet, a little effort.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am sure Lisa was being tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
The fact that the date on the paper is July 4, 2009 makes me think they're really not trying to spoof anyone into thinking it's current news, just a cross between entertainment and their own personal predictions (or fears, depends who made it I suppose).
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
For those of us who love elaborate pranks, with more than a little thought put in.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I am sure Lisa was being tongue-in-cheek.
Given her history here, if she was being tongue in cheek, then virtually every post she's made has been tongue in cheek.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I am sure Lisa was being tongue-in-cheek.
Given her history here, if she was being tongue in cheek, then virtually every post she's made has been tongue in cheek.
But it's so obviously a satire -- e.g., the date of 2009, as Architraz Warden noted -- I cannot imagine anyone would take it seriously. That would be like referencing Time Cube as a primary source in one's dissertation. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Given her history here, if she was being tongue in cheek..."
In the sense of fitting Lisa's taste for "gotcha" humor. ?NPR? reported on the spoof about a day before the link was posted here.
[ November 14, 2008, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Obviously it's not a real headline. But the majority of the headlines look to me to be the sort of things leftists would be overjoyed to see. The sort of things they dream of Obama accomplishing.
I think Lisa's point is, obviously, that to her these things look like less of a dream come true, and more of a horrifying nightmare.
Was this really that hard to figure out? Are you guys really that dead set on interpreting everything Lisa says in an extreme negative light?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Have you checked the ads?
quote:We did it first. Now we're bringing it back...
Back in 1996, we developed an electric car called the EV1. But changes in legislation meant it made no sense in our business model, and we recalled it.
Today's changes in legislation have made the return of the EV1 possible.
It was the best back then, and it's the best now.
GM Because we have to. ™
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Mmmm, maximum wage.
Can you Americans experiment with that one while you're busy nationalizing your financial and auto industries? We never got around that that one, but it sounds fun.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Actually Dan, If you read the leftist blogs, you would know that people who consider those head lines a dream come true, are rarely pro-Obama and have never even entertained the possibility that he might accomplish anything truly progressive.
The only people I've heard projecting that Obama might even consider doing any of those things are from the far right wing.
I naturally assumed that this paper from the future was a satire of the right wing wackos who are the only ones who believe this reflects reality.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I thought the headlines and articles were far too adulatory to be real satire. The BBC article linked above says
quote:A liberal group called the Yes Men, well known in the US for its practical jokes, claimed responsibility for the elaborate prank.
If "right wing wackos" had been behind it I think there would have been a lot more mockery and outlandishness. Instead, it's a fairly laudatory presentation of an extreme progressive agenda (by a radically progressive organization).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Obviously it's not a real headline. But the majority of the headlines look to me to be the sort of things leftists would be overjoyed to see. The sort of things they dream of Obama accomplishing.
But satire is only funny when it's clever. The overdone, cliched, and/or inept is just tiresome.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If "right wing wackos" had been behind it I think there would have been a lot more mockery and outlandishness. Instead, it's a fairly laudatory presentation of an extreme progressive agenda (by a radically progressive organization).
I didn't say "right wing wackos" were behind it. I said I thought it was a satire of what the "right wing wackos" think about Obama. Totally different.
But it seems I was wrong either way. This group is not only leftist but they have been planning this for over 6 months so it appears it has little to do with Obama's election.
That makes more sense to me because as I noted, the radical left does not particularly like Obama or have any hope that he might share their agenda.
Looking more closely at the paper, I think it may be a misnomer to call this satire. It is a prank but not really a joke. It is in fact what it claims to be, "All the news they'd like to print".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone check the sports section of the fake NYT site?
The Washington Redskins changed their name because it was too racially insensitive, and the Washington Lobbyists was the proposed name change.
Also, 100,000 fans got together and formed a collective to buy the Mets.
Heh.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Obviously it's not a real headline. But the majority of the headlines look to me to be the sort of things leftists would be overjoyed to see. The sort of things they dream of Obama accomplishing.
But satire is only funny when it's clever. The overdone, cliched, and/or inept is just tiresome.
Nevertheless, the inimitable Stephen Colbert (to be clear, I only think he's overdone and cliched; he is immensely adept) has been quite popular for years.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:If "right wing wackos" had been behind it I think there would have been a lot more mockery and outlandishness. Instead, it's a fairly laudatory presentation of an extreme progressive agenda (by a radically progressive organization).
I didn't say "right wing wackos" were behind it. I said I thought it was a satire of what the "right wing wackos" think about Obama. Totally different.
Ahh, sorry, I see now that's what you wrote. Sort of like the "New Yorker" cover, but less raw.
As for support of Obama by the Yes Men, given that their MO is anti-corporate hijinks, I would guess they're mostly Nader supporters who are trying to nudge Obama toward a more progressive agenda.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Obviously it's not a real headline. But the majority of the headlines look to me to be the sort of things leftists would be overjoyed to see. The sort of things they dream of Obama accomplishing.
But satire is only funny when it's clever. The overdone, cliched, and/or inept is just tiresome.
Nevertheless, the inimitable Stephen Colbert (to be clear, I only think he's overdone and cliched; he is immensely adept) has been quite popular for years.
I daresay you have proved my point. Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Ugh. There is so much in that paper I hope never happens. They have Bush with a high likelihood of execution, it's kind of scary that their are people out there with a laundry list like this. I think I'll go read The Onion, I'm more of a fan of satire than far left political pornography.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
yeah, the Onion is great. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, here in Canada, being a country that has principals similar to those espoused by people like Obama, we already have maximum wage, 110% death tax, the eradication of property, we recite the socialist oath to the government every morning while drinking our legally-required vitamin enhanced smoothie (VES), free public universities and public health care.
quote:Congressional spokespeople announced a funding appropriation to return the subject of civics to high school curricula nationwide.
You don't have civics in your high school curricular?
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
It's not required at a federal level. It's certainly there, I haven't run into a high school where it wasn't an implicitly required course.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: It's not required at a federal level. It's certainly there, I haven't run into a high school where it wasn't an implicitly required course.
We had an AP government course, but I am not sure if there was a regular government course. There may have been, but if so it must have been one semester as opposed to two... because seniors also took California history or European history if they didn't do AP Gov.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You don't have civics in your high school curricular?
We don't have a national school curricula. Curricula are set at the state and local school board levels.
In my school district, civics was a required course in 8th or 9th grade. We also covered a lot of civics in elementary school and as part of American History, which was a required class in the high school junior year. That was quite a while back but it is my understanding that those requirements are largely the same today.
I'm strongly opposed to having school curricula set at the national level. In my experience, curriculum decisions are best made as close to the real world of the classroom as possible.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm strongly opposed to having school curricula set at the national level.
Amen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm... less opposed now to having school curricula set at the national level after seeing what some individual states and counties define as realistic and worthwhile curricula.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My only concern about having no national standards for school curricula is that a diploma in Dubuque has to be worth the same as one from Los Angeles. But I imagine if this hasn't been a problem to date, then it's not a major concern of others.
As far as civics goes in K-12...the more classes I take at the college level, the more I realize that civics in high school and junior high is a joke. I guess they cover some of the really, really top layer of basics, but a lot of it is just plain wrong when you get into the details, and all they focus on is names and dates, which are the parts most kids think are the most boring stuff to begin with.
If that's all they are going to teach, they might as well just cram American History and Government into a single class and just do a cliffs notes version. Most kids don't care about it, and they aren't doing it right anyway. The more I've been thinking about it, this is growing in my mind as a reason why I don't want to be a history teacher anymore. I don't want to be trapped in a curriculum that I think is wrong, and if I had to teach the high school material that I got, I'd quit. The only civics class I took in all of high school or junior high that was worth anything was AP History. I think AP History should just be regular history.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm... less opposed now to having school curricula set at the national level after seeing what some individual states and counties define as realistic and worthwhile curricula.
Then parents need to step up and change things, then. I do not want to see national politics getting involved in my local school district and adding to the already choking bureaucracy. The closer the decisions are to me, the more control I have over them. At the state and local levels I have inlets -- school board members, state legislators, and other parents. *I* have a say in what *my* child learns. At the national level, I get a form letter response to any suggestion I might send. Decisions aren't based on what is good for my children but rather on what is good for reelection.
But wait, there's more! When individual states are allowed to set educational policies, they can compete with one another, thus putting free market principles to work. One state can try new things while the rest of the country waits and watches to see if it works. Trying something new and launching it nationwide is a much more frightening prospect. And much more difficult to undo if it fails to work.
But mostly, I'm power hungry...especially when it comes to my own kids. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Then parents need to step up and change things, then
I'm not sure if that will allay any of Samp's fears. There are plenty of stupid and ignorant parents out there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are plenty of stupid and ignorant parents out there.
It's the idea that a national authority will be responsible for deciding whether or not a local community of parents is stupid and ignorant as a whole that makes me not want a national curriculum.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a perfectly valid fear. I wasn't putting a value on one or the other, just pointing out the potential for it being a lose/lose situation.
The flipside to that argument is that those stupid and ignorant parents can band together to set some wacky curriculum that the government would have no choice but to accept, even if it was to their long term disadvantage.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Many curriculum guidelines are set at state levels. Just how many wacky parents are we talking?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In a state like Wyoming or Alaska, probably not as many. Hell, look at who they elected governor in Alaska. It's not out of the realm of possibility.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's a perfectly valid fear. I wasn't putting a value on one or the other, just pointing out the potential for it being a lose/lose situation.
The flipside to that argument is that those stupid and ignorant parents can band together to set some wacky curriculum that the government would have no choice but to accept, even if it was to their long term disadvantage.
I'll add another fear: There is stupidity at all levels. Who says the ones at the top aren't the ones making the bad judgment calls?
There's no such thing as a perfect system, but at least with local controls I have two real options: One -- become active in my own school's policies. Two -- move. If the whole nation is doing the same stupid stuff, I have neither option.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In a state like Wyoming or Alaska, probably not as many. Hell, look at who they elected governor in Alaska. It's not out of the realm of possibility.
Oh, come on. Palin wouldn't have made a great VP (or, heaven forfend, president), and I don't agree with everything she has done as governor. But she's not a completely crazy choice for that job.
Besides, it is unquestionably true that living in Alaska is in many ways very different than living in the contiguous US. They should have the right and the ability to have their school curricula reflect that.
I'm in favor of a strong federal government, but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should be handled at a state (or lower) level, NOT federal.
Also, what Christine said.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Completely crazy? Meh. I'm sure there are crazier choices, but she's doing a pretty lousy job, which is saying something.
quote:Besides, it is unquestionably true that living in Alaska is in many ways very different than living in the contiguous US. They should have the right and the ability to have their school curricula reflect that.
Which would make it somewhat difficult for anyone growing up in Alaska to prepare for life anywhere else wouldn't it?
quote:I'm in favor of a strong federal government, but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should be handled at a state (or lower) level, NOT federal.
Generally I agree. Michigan has more stringent graduation requirements than most states, and I'm thankful for it. Must suck for kids stuck in states that have crappy requirements, but I guess that's the choice of those states' legislatures and parents. A diploma in one state has to be worth the same thing as every other. And yet I'd be concerned with where that opened door would lead, and that it wouldn't stop with some absolute bare minimum requirements, and that we'd end up with a nationalized curriculum, with all the power taken away from the states. I have no idea on what sort of happy medium could be reached, and thus I too favor state control, and get nervous at talks of federal control.
But that doesn't mean there aren't valid concerns.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Besides, it is unquestionably true that living in Alaska is in many ways very different than living in the contiguous US. They should have the right and the ability to have their school curricula reflect that.
Which would make it somewhat difficult for anyone growing up in Alaska to prepare for life anywhere else wouldn't it?
Only if we assume there isn't enough in common that an adjustment is difficult. I'm assuming we are talking about different priorities; not throwing out whole chunks of basic curriculum.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A diploma in one state has to be worth the same thing as every other.
No it doesn't. I agree that all must include certain minimum requirements, but that's it. Many states don't even have official state diplomas. California doesn't -- not unless you graduate from a public high school. (Which can be very difficult to explain to someone from NY, where they have the Regents, and everyone gets (or doesn't) an official state diploma.)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)