I don't know Professor Cronon personally, but I've read some of his work (not a lot, he's not really in my sub-field), and by all accounts he's a highly respected scholar and teacher. I don't have any problems with transparency and what not, but this is a troublesome, apparently politically motivated, gathering of information.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I know nothing about this. What's the deal?
I did find this line in your link interesting:
"We frequently receive public records requests with apparently political motives, from both the left and the right, and every position in between."
So this sounds like neither nothing new nor exclusive to republicans.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's a troubling attitude to take towards bad behavior of (what I presume is) a group you sympathize with, Wingracer.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Here is a link to the blog entry that prompted the open records request by the Wisconsin Republican Party. Here is Cronon's response to that request, and an analysis of why that request was made.
Wingracer, they're very good reads that will at the very least clear up some of your ambiguities regarding this situation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's a troubling attitude to take towards bad behavior of (what I presume is) a group you sympathize with, Wingracer.
I don't think that pointing out that such behavior is done by both sides is any more troubling than not pointing it out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I second reading both of those entries in full.
A free-market group in Michigan is doing a similar thing to departments at state universities there as well.
quote:Last Thursday and Friday, University of Wisconsin Prof. William Cronon asked why state Republicans were filing public records requests for his e-mails, speculating that they were trying to catch him in an ethics flap. The story went national, and quickly; Paul Krugman made it the subject of his last column.
The story also may have inspired Michigan's Mackinac Center to file requests for similar information from the Labor Studies Center at the University of Michigan, the Center for Workplace Issues at Wayne State University, and Michigan State University. According to Evan McMorris-Santoro, the information requests were filed on Friday and Monday, asking for ""all electronic correspondence (i.e., e-mails) carried out on computers to or from employees, contractors, etc. -
Quote: "Scott Walker" "Wisconsin" "Madison" "Maddow" Any other emails dealing with the collective bargaining situation in Wisconsin.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I find this a little disturbing. Isn't Stephan Thompson overstepping his position and entering personal lives of individuals?
Does Stephan Thompson have any legal reinforcement if Bill Cronon were to refuse to give up his personal information....
Union.....Recall... I wonder what the other 18 words were .__. ------------------- Never mind that, Striders link gave all this information...
[ April 02, 2011, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Porter,
It might be because I'm tired, but I've re-read your post three times now and I don't think I understand what you're saying. Or rather I'm coming up with several possible meanings-could you restate, please?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Thanks for the links strider, very interesting indeed. I can only skim them now but will read them in full later on.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You got on Wingracer's case for pointing out that what you call bad behavior is routinely done by "both the left and the right, and every position in between".
This is, I think, worth pointing out. In fact, if it is true, I think it should be pointed out.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's a troubling attitude to take towards bad behavior of (what I presume is) a group you sympathize with, Wingracer.
Not really, I hate both sides. Yes I probably disagree with liberals more policy wise but republicans can yank my chain even more in other areas.
My point was simply that it sounded like a case of a republican playing the democrat's game, as this is the kind of thing they just love to do. If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger. Of course, I am still pretty ignorant of the context as I am only just starting to become informed of the situation so there may very well be a new wrinkle or two to examine later on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wingracer: in what other areas do Republicans yank your chain?
quote:My point was simply that it sounded like a case of a republican playing the democrat's game, as this is the kind of thing they just love to do.
As a side note, I'm not aware of any liberal organization that's made a habit of making FOIA requests for the private correspondence of university professors.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I hadn't heard about this. Very interesting. I have met Cronon and have an enormous amount of respect for him. Not only is he a remarkable scholar (he is nearly universally accepted as the leading Environmental Historian in America, likely the world), but he is an incredibly nice man as well. This is probably my favorite essay by him: The Trouble with Wilderness. Interestingly enough, when me and several of my colleagues (professors and fellow graduate students) met to have a lively scholarly discussion on this piece, the discussion turned pretty quickly to the role of the intellectual in the political sphere.
This is an interesting issue though. Historians seem to be often criticized for not leaving their ivory tower (incidentally my office is near the top floor of an ivory colored building). And yet, when someone like Cronon does seek to use his prodigious amount of knowledge and brain power to better understand the present and plan for the future, he finds himself attacked by political parties. That sets up a dangerous precedent where intellectuals are held accountable not to integrity, but to political correctness. I, perhaps not surprisingly given my aspirations to... well, be Bill Cronon, throw my hat in with him. There is a "on the other hand" here as well, but I have to help my wife with chores, so perhaps later.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean if you know of one, great, please share. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was more false equivalence apocryphalia designed to yet again keep people at least under the impression that the democrats are always 'just as bad,' because, well, it's everywhere.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You got on Wingracer's case for pointing out that what you call bad behavior is routinely done by "both the left and the right, and every position in between".
He got on his case for presenting a false equivalency, and dismissing notably suspicious and troubling behavior as trivial because it is supposedly being done universally. It's a fair point if everyone's doing it, but that doesn't give bad behavior a pass. There's also the matter of whether *everyone* really does it, or whether with the same intentions, or whether as much. Not a thread seems to go by without some low-post count single focus poster popping up and saying: "democrats did it too! lolz!" And that's a fairly troubling attitude, because as much as I can remember of the Bush administration, it was not 8 years of Democrats doing something, then having the defense be "Republicans do it too." It happened, but I don't recall that being the catch all blanket justification for all political exigencies.
And this kind of statement is also a veiled ad hominem against the alleging party, saying essentially: "you don't actually care about this trivial matter for any ethical reasons, but rather, your complaint is purely politically motivated, and you have so few scruples that you would never complain if this behavior benefited you politically." This is the problem with false equivalencies. They are false. They misattribute motivations, dismiss important distinctions between right and wrong, and are entirely politically motivated in and of themselves. This has been trendy among conservatives for years now, and it is frustrating that it gets so little acknowledgement.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Let's look at the quote Wingracer highlighted for a second. The U president said:
quote: "We frequently receive public records requests with apparently political motives, from both the left and the right, and every position in between."
Now, what he didn't say is that they frequently receive FOIA requests to read people's university email. These strike me as more ethically problematic than requests to (for example) see aspects of the university's budget or administrative records.
It's one thing to ask to see actual public documents, and quite another thing to ask to read someone's email. Do we have any evidence that liberal organizations have asked to read anyone's email?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I'm not dismissing anything, nor am I presenting a false equivalency. I was merely pointing out a direct quote from the source that I found interesting. I do not yet know enough about the situation to intelligently comment on any bad behavior, though I must admit that at first glance, it does indeed sound very fishy and not something I would endorse.
Destineer, I would have to agree with this statement:
"Now, what he didn't say is that they frequently receive FOIA requests to read people's university email. These strike me as more ethically problematic than requests to (for example) see aspects of the university's budget or administrative records."
I assume that the statement the university made was talking about the same sort of request. If that is not the case, you are absolutely right. Personal emails are definitely more problematic ethically than day to day university operation or other such information.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
A quick google search makes it sound like this sort of thing is common. Of course, that doesn't mean it is right but here are a few intersting ones:
I think Professor Cronon would point out the fundamental difference between asking for the emails of an elected official versus a university professor.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
The Open Records Law is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of government bodies at all levels in Wisconsin. -------------------------- What's defined as government bodies? Why are the emails considered public? (Found possibly, the email is a State Email, but I am still not seeing why that makes it public.) And why does it seem like this law is used by the government on the public and not the other way around?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wingracer: do you believe that a history professor, working for a state university (and thus a state employee), exchanges email with students and other professors on his university account as a representative of state government? That he is, when he writes a book on history, engaging in state business?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I would suggest not writing e-mails on work accounts, not just for professors but for everyone. If it is on a work account, it isn't private. If my husband's boss wants to read every e-mail my husband wrote, he could, including the ones were I ask him to pick up milk on the way home or one were I right something steamy and wholly inappropriate. And if he writes something in those e-mails that is against company rules, his boss can use it as evidence to fire him. Get a hotmail or gmail account for private stuff.
[ April 02, 2011, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: scholarette ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, my wife -- who is a researcher with the same university for which Cronon works -- has long maintained separate accounts for the very same reason. Cronon himself claims that he does so, as well, and it's a common enough thing that I believe him. The issue of whether or not he actually discussed politics on his university email account, though, or whether friends and acquaintances emailed him at his university account about political issues (even if he replied on his personal account), is IMO a separate question from whether the private email account of a university professor might be said to be a representative organ of state government.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wingracer: do you believe that a history professor, working for a state university (and thus a state employee), exchanges email with students and other professors on his university account as a representative of state government? That he is, when he writes a book on history, engaging in state business?
Well, in a way yes as he is paid by the state but no, he isn't involved in day to day state politics in any significant way.
But what I find interesting from my brief google search is that it seems a LOT of universities have web pages detailing how to request public information, including emails, from them. Clearly this is a normal thing. I can request the same information myself. From what I can gather, there are some very good reasons for this but unfortunately, it opens up a lot of possibilities for abuse.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: And why does it seem like this law is used by the government on the public and not the other way around?
I don't really see that so far. In my searches, nearly everything was someone in government requesting info on someone else in government or a private entity requesting info on someone in government. This incident with the professor is about the only one I have seen so far of info being requested on a quasi-private entity. I say "quasi" because he does work for the state so I guess you could argue that he is in the public sector if you wanted to.
But then again, I am sure there are numerous cases of it happening that we never hear about so you could be right.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: I'm not dismissing anything, nor am I presenting a false equivalency.
quote: So this sounds like neither nothing new nor exclusive to republicans.
This is a dismissal and a false equivalency in one sentence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Porter,
quote:You got on Wingracer's case for pointing out that what you call bad behavior is routinely done by "both the left and the right, and every position in between".
This is, I think, worth pointing out. In fact, if it is true, I think it should be pointed out.
OK, that's about what I thought. And I agree with you, if one believes something like that is going on all over the place it is worth pointing out, but that's not quite what I was talking about. What I was talking about was the impulse to excuse, justify, minimalize the behavior of one's own group - or a group one is sympathetic towards - by saying, 'The other guys do it too.'
That's what's troubling. It's not supposed to matter what the other guys are doing, unless your metric for behavior is 'they started it'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think that wingracer intentionally provided a false equivalence argument. I also think it's really just a light false equivalence suggestion, since it isn't flat out saying that the other side is 'just as bad' or whatever. It's just saying that this is not exclusively republican.
Considering how frequently full-bore false equivalence arguments crop up around here, I'd ideally like to keep the overt dismissals to them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The suggestion stands in for the argument. At best it's sloppy sophistry I'm not at all unused to from his likes. You just "point out" that it isn't exclusively one-sided behavior, and that isn't *really* an argument at all. All the very cowardly "pointing out" of things that goes on, without the commitment to the argument that is being referenced, annoys me. Even if he, in this particular case, wasn't specifically attempting to make that argument, it smacks of the same tired political jargon we're hearing all the time. People just repeat this crap like it means something: "not exclusive to Republicans." That isn't valuable information to submit to a discussion unless it is intended to make a point or to draw a meaningful distinction, and on its surface, the fact that this general practice (making a FOI request for political reasons), is not exclusively Republican, is not a meaningful distinction in this discussion. And this is precisely because the intention and ethical implications of a specific request is in question, not the ethical implications of making these requests in general.
So you have someone committing an ethically questionable act, and the immediate pavlovian response people like Wingracer seem well trained to give at this point is, "everybody does that." Everybody poops, not everybody poops on somebody else's doorstep. That's the meaningful distinction here.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: So you have someone committing an ethically questionable act, and the immediate pavlovian response people like Wingracer seem well trained to give at this point is, "everybody does that."
But that's not exactly what Wingracer did and he/she even clarified what they meant in subsequent posts. Wingracer never offered the defense of "everyone's doing it." Re-reading it, I seen no clear way for you to have reached that conclusion without some "ethically questionable" interpretation (read: strawmanning) of your own.
You're reading way too much into what was said. Perhaps it merits some discussion but you're so sure of your position and the intentions of others as to be totally unreasonable and unwilling reconsider your position or, at the very least, your approach. Your argument is a stretch. But continue, if you desire, to to slash at the strawman you've conjured.
And really, you need to explain your rationale for coming back from a self-imposed exile just to get pissy about some fictitious republican false-equivalence campaign you've imagined.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Perhaps you are correct orincoro but if so, look at the title of this thread. It seems to clearly attack republicans specifically for something that appears to be a pretty routine occurrence from all sides and not just political parties. Wouldn't that be kind of like a burglar complaining that his house was robbed? Yes it was wrong, but hard to sympathize with him.
I am also curious. What exactly is "my likes" and "people like wingracer"?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wingracer: in what other areas do Republicans yank your chain?
I would love to talk about it but that would totally derail this thread. Perhaps after things wind down a bit.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, Wingracer, the title of this thread refers to the fact that, quite literally, the Republican Party of Wisconsin made the FOIA request, which in fact is not a routine one.
quote:Wouldn't that be kind of like a burglar complaining that his house was robbed? Yes it was wrong, but hard to sympathize with him.
I was going to defend you from the whole "false equivalence" accusation, but you just made that impossible. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Perhaps you are correct orincoro but if so, look at the title of this thread. It seems to clearly attack republicans specifically for something that appears to be a pretty routine occurrence from all sides and not just political parties. Wouldn't that be kind of like a burglar complaining that his house was robbed? Yes it was wrong, but hard to sympathize with him.
And I just tried to back you up by saying you weren't necessarily making a false equivalence argument.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
(Is it some law of posting, Orincoro, that any discussion you participate in with a controversial topic the chances of you saying something personally insulting about someone approaches 1 the longer the discussion lasts? It's actually sort of connected to the conversation about false equivalence in a way-just because someone thinks there is an equivalence doesn't free them from the obligation to be accurate; just because you think you're right doesn't free you from an obligation not to sneer and scorn and insult wily nily.)
And capax, wingracer never explicitly offered the defense, "Everyone's doing it," but has made many statements now which minimize the behavior by pointing out the other side does it to. That's essentially the same thing. So it's not really a straw man, not that you're not known for summoning up straw men in defense of various conservative positions around here. And it's pretty unlikely that you're actually unhappy Orincoro posted, either, so I'm not sure who you're trying to kid. (And no one owes you an explanation for anything, behavior-wise.)
---------
quote:I am also curious. What exactly is "my likes" and "people like wingracer"?
Well, as badly put as it was - and it was pretty badly put, and I suspect Orincoro throws a whole lot of extra meaning into I wouldn't - I would say 'people like Wingracer' would mean "people who claim to 'hate' Republicans as much as Democrats, but when there is some sort of transgression by Republicans, is quick to minimize it by pointing out - accurately or inaccurately - that Democrats do it just as much.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I was going to defend you from the whole "false equivalence" accusation, but you just made that impossible.
That's why it was in the form of a question. Essentially, I am asking if that would fit into the whole "false equivalency" thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Your question -- "isn't this like a burglar complaining about his house being robbed?" -- asks whether we agree with you that there's a real equivalence.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, as badly put as it was - and it was pretty badly put, and I suspect Orincoro throws a whole lot of extra meaning into I wouldn't - I would say 'people like Wingracer' would mean "people who claim to 'hate' Republicans as much as Democrats, but when there is some sort of transgression by Republicans, is quick to minimize it by pointing out - accurately or inaccurately - that Democrats do it just as much.
I can see how you would come to that conclusion so fair enough. I just like to point out hypocrisy. In my brief time here, this board seems to be pretty liberal so anything I argue against here is going to make it sound like I am "one of those people." Another board I frequent is almost all conservative so when I try to make the same sort of arguments there, I get called a "liberal socialist" or even a "traitor." Those guys are hardcore
On that board, people frequently post news bites specifically intended to blast some democrat over something stupid they did or said. Many times I have found myself agreeing with the poster philosophically, yet having to argue against them because their tactics make them sound like yet another stark raving lunatic. You can find something similar from me on the Newt Gingrich thread here. I agree with everything everyone has said about Newt except for their insistence on misquoting him. By insisting that everyone stop misquoting him, I am accused of defending him.
Perhaps my experiences on the other forum have influenced my reactions on this one too much.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Your question -- "isn't this like a burglar complaining about his house being robbed?" -- asks whether we agree with you that there's a real equivalence.
Then answer it. A simple yes or no would suffice. Of course, if you want me to believe you, a bit of explanation would be nice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The answer is "no, it's not like a burglar complaining about his house being robbed." Several posts here have already explained why.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The answer is "no, it's not like a burglar complaining about his house being robbed." Several posts here have already explained why.
The only serious explanation I see is orincoro and his is so laced with disdain it is hard to make out. Perhaps you could put it in more simple terms that a simpleton like me could understand.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The only serious explanation I see is orincoro and his is so laced with disdain it is hard to make out. Perhaps you could put it in more simple terms that a simpleton like me could understand.
The purpose of the FOIA laws is to increase transparency of those governing by those being governed.
Individuals and organizations of all political stripes frequently use FOIA to fish for material that can be used against those that govern, but this is arguably within the spirit of FOIA. A democratic senator complaining about a FOIA request for his official correspondence might be the burglar in your metaphor if the Democrats frequently made similar requests of the Republican lawmakers.
In this case, however, we have a political party attempting to find the material to harm the credibility of a private citizen through a FOIA request. The Republican Party is technically a private organization, but functionally it is a governing organization while the professor is technically a state employee, but that employment is incidental to his political activity. It's a technically valid, but ethically dubious reversal of the purpose of FOIA.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay. Yes, all sorts of groups make FOIA requests all the time. However, it is rather unusual for someone to make a FOIA request for the private emails of a university professor -- especially one rather blatantly (and somewhat stupidly, when you think about it) keyed on current event buzzwords. This is especially true when you realize that there can be no purpose for this FOIA request but to intimidate the professor in question, to remind him and his correspondents that, hey, he's a lackey of the state and he should be careful what he says in public. (Note that this request was filed in response to an article he wrote on his personal blog about history, which specifically addresses (from his perspective as a professor of history) the historical development of anti-labor lobbies.)
So here we see FOIA used not as a way of uncovering malfeasance, but rather as an implicit threat against an individual who is, after all, only an employee of the state based on his paycheck.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QUOTE]The purpose of the FOIA laws is to increase transparency of those governing by those being governed.
Individuals and organizations of all political stripes frequently use FOIA to fish for material that can be used against those that govern, but this is arguably within the spirit of FOIA. A democratic senator complaining about a FOIA request for his official correspondence might be the burglar in your metaphor if the Democrats frequently made similar requests of the Republican lawmakers.
In this case, however, we have a political party attempting to find the material to harm the credibility of a private citizen through a FOIA request. The Republican Party is technically a private organization, but functionally it is a governing organization while the professor is technically a state employee, but that employment is incidental to his political activity. It's a technically valid, but ethically dubious reversal of the purpose of FOIA.
Excellent explanation. I would have to agree with that.
Now, please allow me to throw a "what if" question out there. Let me stress that I do NOT believe this to be the case but I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on the possibility.
Suppose you were this republican. You truly believed that the professor was not writing this blog for his own purposes but was in fact doing it at the request of the democrats. Perhaps you had even heard rumors that he was being payed by them to write it. Would requesting his emails to try and confirm that link be ethical then? Should something like that be public information?
Come to think of it, this is probably the question I should have asked in the first place Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And capax, wingracer never explicitly offered the defense, "Everyone's doing it," but has made many statements now which minimize the behavior by pointing out the other side does it to. That's essentially the same thing. So it's not really a straw man, not that you're not known for summoning up straw men in defense of various conservative positions around here. And it's pretty unlikely that you're actually unhappy Orincoro posted, either, so I'm not sure who you're trying to kid. (And no one owes you an explanation for anything, behavior-wise)
Pointing out the fact that both sides of the aisle engage in a certain behavior is not minimizing the behavior. You can do one and not the other so it's not essentially the same thing. You claim what Wingracer said is a false equivalence by ascribing to his comments certain unstated intentions but he clarified his position and said he was not trying to minimize any behavior. Yet even after clarification, the misinterpretation is still being attacked.
Accidentally or intentionally misrepresenting Wingracer's position is a straw man argument and i have the suspicion that, for a certain poster, the misrepresentation was intentional in order to present an attack on the alleged dishonest tactics of the right wing.
And I noticed your ad hominem tu quoque, but whatever past straw men I've presented are irrelevant to this discussion. It almost seems as though your'e engaging in the very behavior your'e condemning...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Suppose you were this republican. You truly believed that the professor was not writing this blog for his own purposes but was in fact doing it at the request of the democrats. Perhaps you had even heard rumors that he was being payed by them to write it. Would requesting his emails to try and confirm that link be ethical then?
No. Again, his government employment, though possibly meeting a technical requirement for FOIA, is incidental. He is not exercising any power of the government in his writings or advocacy nor is he in a position to do so.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This is especially true when you realize that there can be no purpose for this FOIA request but to intimidate the professor in question, to remind him and his correspondents that, hey, he's a lackey of the state and he should be careful what he says in public. (Note that this request was filed in response to an article he wrote on his personal blog about history, which specifically addresses (from his perspective as a professor of history) the historical development of anti-labor lobbies.)
I think it can also be a reminder that no government employee is beyond scrutiny or reproach. The influence of a university professor can be great and the public should have an interest in monitoring the accuracy of what the professor teaches as well as the honesty of the behavior he engages in. This does seem to be more a case of intimidation but I don't think this instance should discourage the legitimate use of FOIA for this purpose.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: No. Again, his government employment, though possibly meeting a technical requirement for FOIA, is incidental. He is not exercising any power of the government in his writings or advocacy nor is he in a position to do so.
Even if you thought he was ALSO under the employment of the democratic party to write these articles(by being paid to write them), or would you have to prove that first without the emails? Perhaps by requesting public record payment information from the democrats instead?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Even if you thought he was ALSO under the employment of the democratic party to write these articles(by being paid to write them), or would you have to prove that first without the emails?
It should be irrelevant. While it would be interesting to know that he was paid by Democrats for his writings, it's still irrelevant from a government transparency perspective. This professor is not governing in any meaningful sense of the word.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Pointing out the fact that both sides of the aisle engage in a certain behavior is not minimizing the behavior. You can do one and not the other so it's not essentially the same thing. You claim what Wingracer said is a false equivalence by ascribing to his comments certain unstated intentions but he clarified his position and said he was not trying to minimize any behavior. Yet even after clarification, the misinterpretation is still being attacked.
Accidentally or intentionally misrepresenting Wingracer's position is a straw man argument and i have the suspicion that, for a certain poster, the misrepresentation was intentional in order to present an attack on the alleged dishonest tactics of the right wing.
And I noticed your ad hominem tu quoque, but whatever past straw men I've presented are irrelevant to this discussion. It almost seems as though your'e engaging in the very behavior your'e condemning...
I appreciate the defense. But I would like to point out that now that it has been explained, I can see where there very well may have been a false equivalence in my posts (even leaving out intentions) since there does seem to be at least some distinction between what is being done here and what I have provided as examples of "everyone else" doing it. So I can't really blame them for pointing that out, though perhaps a couple could have done it a lot better like matt and tom. Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It should be irrelevant. While it would be interesting to know that he was paid by Democrats for his writings, it's still irrelevant from a government transparency perspective. This professor is not governing in any meaningful sense of the word.
Ok, how about coming at it from the other direction. Would you say it would be justifiable to request emails from the democrats instead, specifically looking for any correspondence they may have had with this professor? The people you are requesting info from ARE in government, but the info you are asking for (again in my strictly hypothetical scenario) is exactly the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it can also be a reminder that no government employee is beyond scrutiny or reproach.
Frankly, it bothers me to think of university professors as government employees. They work for the university, which is funded in part by the government.
In fact, the University of Wisconsin takes less of a percentage of its funding from the government than Northrup-Grumman does.
quote:Would you say it would be justifiable to request emails from the democrats instead, specifically looking for any correspondence they may have had with this professor?
Absolutely. Fishing expeditions are a long if tiresome tradition.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Frankly, it bothers me to think of university professors as government employees. They work for the university, which is funded in part by the government.
Perhaps the more relevant part is that the university is chartered by the government, while Northrop-Grumman isn't. That is, the university was explicitly created as part of the government (note: this wording doesn't mean it was when it was first started, but that at some point an act was taken that made it such). Northrop-Grumman, as not part of the government, must do things such as competitive bidding in order to obtain its funding. The university receives its funding by virtue of being a part of the government.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: You're reading way too much into what was said. Perhaps it merits some discussion but you're so sure of your position and the intentions of others as to be totally unreasonable and unwilling reconsider your position or, at the very least, your approach. Your argument is a stretch. But continue, if you desire, to to slash at the strawman you've conjured.
I am reading nothing into what was said, other than what was said. What I am doing is arguing that what was said is indicative of popular political jargon, and I'm talking about why that is not a good thing. I don't need to know his politics to know what he said, and what he said is clearly a very silly thing to say, and to then think having said it matters, or makes any sense, or helps anyone to understand anything at all.
quote: And really, you need to explain your rationale for coming back from a self-imposed exile just to get pissy about some fictitious republican false-equivalence campaign you've imagined.
No, I don't. I am free to do whatever the hell I please. As do you, and of course it doesn't stop you from being nasty. I'm nasty, but at least I'm not a moral crusader who thinks his excrement doesn't stink. What's your excuse?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Perhaps you are correct orincoro but if so, look at the title of this thread. It seems to clearly attack republicans specifically for something that appears to be a pretty routine occurrence from all sides and not just political parties. Wouldn't that be kind of like a burglar complaining that his house was robbed? Yes it was wrong, but hard to sympathize with him.
And I just tried to back you up by saying you weren't necessarily making a false equivalence argument.
You know I love being right... but I would rather not have the opportunity to be so right so often.
[ April 04, 2011, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Frankly, it bothers me to think of university professors as government employees. They work for the university, which is funded in part by the government.
Perhaps the more relevant part is that the university is chartered by the government, while Northrop-Grumman isn't. That is, the university was explicitly created as part of the government (note: this wording doesn't mean it was when it was first started, but that at some point an act was taken that made it such). Northrop-Grumman, as not part of the government, must do things such as competitive bidding in order to obtain its funding. The university receives its funding by virtue of being a part of the government.
Well, the important distinction is whether we should consider a university professor, or any employee, a "government employee." As a for instance, in the Czech Republic, the state owns a number of monopolies on planning, transport, and health care. The employees are privately employed, and though their companies serve government agencies and commissions, they are not themselves government apparatus.
I don't know the university thing well enough to say that there's a significant difference here. The state charters the school, but could the employees of the school be reasonably treated as representatives of government policy? It just seems an absurd conclusion, because a fair amount of what tenured university professors actually produce in terms of research is not anything related to official policy, is not treated as official policy, and is not explicitly endorsed by the state (it is tacitly endorsed only by continued funding).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, it is pretty clear here (Ontario) that university professors are "public sector employees". http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2011/ How that equates (or not) with whether they are "government employees," I don't have a strong opinion about yet.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In the US, public university employees are government employees. What's more, even if they weren't, their university email is the property of the university, and can thus be requested under most state public information laws from the university. And using any non-university email for university business, while common, is typically against university policy, and may (or may not) violate various confidentiality and public record laws (after all, the university is required to do business in public).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Accidentally or intentionally misrepresenting Wingracer's position is a straw man argument and i have the suspicion that, for a certain poster, the misrepresentation was intentional in order to present an attack on the alleged dishonest tactics of the right wing.
You can quit this whole crusader thing of yours anytime.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And using any non-university email for university business, while common, is typically against university policy, and may (or may not) violate various confidentiality and public record laws (after all, the university is required to do business in public).
I've checked into this, and it is not true at any of the state Universities I've worked at. Why do you say its "typical".
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
How about we settle with that I have observed universities where it is definitely the case (at least, there have been specific statements from the policy level of the university administration), and you have observed universities where it is not (out of curiosity, who did you check with? I've found actual knowledge of university policy to be strangely bad at universities at almost all levels, in trying to find out what university policy was on various topics -- copyrights, the email thing, and so forth).
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You can quit this whole crusader thing of yours anytime.
Ha Ha. Yes mother.. After all, someone might get their feelings hurt and never come back if their logical fallacy gets called out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You can quit this whole crusader thing of yours anytime.
Ha Ha. Yes mother.. After all, someone might get their feelings hurt and never come back if their logical fallacy gets called out.
The dripping sarcasm approach goes a little awry when you yourself haven't ever reached the 'never come back' part.
Obviously you really want to be able to pull a good burn on me. You might get it some day. Or you could, as previously mentioned, give this whole thing up, because it's really not working for you.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)