NationStates Jolt Archive

There's incompetence, and then there's this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/us_government_g.html).
Al Hurra television, the U.S. government's $63 million-a-year effort at public diplomacy broadcasting in the Middle East, is run by executives and officials who cannot speak Arabic, according to a senior official who oversees the program.

That might explain why critics say the service has recently been caught broadcasting terrorist messages, including an hour-long tirade on the importance of anti-Jewish violence, among other questionable pieces.
So okay--maybe the number one guy in charge doesn't have to speak Arabic (though it certainly couldn't hurt), but at the very least, you'd think the people below him would know enough to keep this kind of stuff off the air of a pro-western US backed tv station:
The station's gaffes have included broadcasting in December 2006 a 68-minute call to arms against Israelis by a senior figure of the terrorist group Hezbollah; deferential coverage of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference; and a factually flawed piece on a splinter group of Orthodox Jews who oppose the state of Israel, according to the Wall Street Journal, which has reported the network's travails for months.
Sure, the station claims to have people in charge now who won't make the same fuckups, and who can, you know, speak the damn language, but why not hire those people in the first place? Oh yeah--that would be the competent thing to do.

Sure, the station claims to have people in charge now who won't make the same fuckups, and who can, you know, speak the damn language, but why not hire those people in the first place? Oh yeah--that would be the competent thing to do.

Isn't it wonderful when your question is answered for you?

Isn't it wonderful when your question is answered for you?

Wonderful is not quite the word I would use. ;)

I guess this is what happens when you put people in charge who believe that government can't do anything right. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There's incompetence, and then there's this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/us_government_g.html).

So okay--maybe the number one guy in charge doesn't have to speak Arabic (though it certainly couldn't hurt), but at the very least, you'd think the people below him would know enough to keep this kind of stuff off the air of a pro-western US backed tv station:

Sure, the station claims to have people in charge now who won't make the same fuckups, and who can, you know, speak the damn language, but why not hire those people in the first place? Oh yeah--that would be the competent thing to do.
Yet this is the same government you want to have run our health-care system, among other things. Can't you see that the one consistent thing about government is its incompetent handling of almost anything?

But they continued broadcasting! The process works! [/sarcasm]

Seriously though, it's about time the US laid off on the traditional process accountability standards, and focused more on results accountability standards. Hopefully that would can these sorts of morons. It's a damn shame that vested interests don't want the system to change.

There's incompetence, and then there's this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/us_government_g.html).

So okay--maybe the number one guy in charge doesn't have to speak Arabic (though it certainly couldn't hurt), but at the very least, you'd think the people below him would know enough to keep this kind of stuff off the air of a pro-western US backed tv station:

Sure, the station claims to have people in charge now who won't make the same fuckups, and who can, you know, speak the damn language, but why not hire those people in the first place? Oh yeah--that would be the competent thing to do.

lolz

Yet this is the same government you want to have run our health-care system with transparency, oversight and accountability

I've bolded the part you left out which negates this particular fallacy you're trying to make.

I've bolded the part you left out which negates this particular fallacy you're trying to make.
Look, it's far easier to find an example of any government screwing up something, yet we want to believe that it can be counted on to run our pet programs well. Fact is that it can't. There's no fallacy in that statement.

Wonderful is not quite the word I would use. ;)

I guess this is what happens when you put people in charge who believe that government can't do anything right. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think it is more of a "you put people in charge who believe that the government cannot do anything wrong, therefore they do not bother to take care to not make mistakes."

After all, how often has the current administration said they were wrong, despite the countless times it has been shown to be true?

Look, it's far easier to find an example of any government screwing up something, yet we want to believe that it can be counted on to run our pet programs well. Fact is that it can't. There's no fallacy in that statement.

Given the attrition rate of private enterprise, I'd say it's pretty damn easy to find examples of private enterprise screwing things up, especially when you add criminal or underhanded practices to plain old failure.

I have never understood this religious devotion to The Market like it does no wrong or gives two shits about the public good.

Yet this is the same government you want to have run our health-care system, among other things. Can't you see that the one consistent thing about government is its incompetent handling of almost anything?

Oh no--this is not the government I want in charge of health care, just like it's not the government I wanted in charge of FEMA post-Katrina, or the military at any point in time, or just about anything else you can name. I want a competent government in charge of all that shit, you know, run by people who know what the fuck they're doing and who don't believe that government is always the problem. In short, I want the polar opposite of any government you would vote for in charge.

It's Propaganda people.

They got caught using propaganda.

The US station gives air time to Hezzbollah...they must not be all bad.

They are calling it a mistake so they dont piss of Isreal, thats all.

This is clearly a situation where they said "Let them say whatever they want as long as it isnt directly anti-US, that will make us seem more supportive of Arab political concerns...without actually doing anything."

Then when newspapers start bitching they throw their hands up and say "Oh damn...we had no idea..."

They will start doing it again...just wait.

Look, it's far easier to find an example of any government screwing up something, yet we want to believe that it can be counted on to run our pet programs well. Fact is that it can't. There's no fallacy in that statement.

I agree. It can't run any government programs well. Let's dissolve social security and the NSF.

There's incompetence, and then there's this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/us_government_g.html).

So okay--maybe the number one guy in charge doesn't have to speak Arabic (though it certainly couldn't hurt), but at the very least, you'd think the people below him would know enough to keep this kind of stuff off the air of a pro-western US backed tv station:

Sure, the station claims to have people in charge now who won't make the same fuckups, and who can, you know, speak the damn language, but why not hire those people in the first place? Oh yeah--that would be the competent thing to do.


While I agree the whole things is rather dumb, isn't it only fair that we allow a station we support to air this kind of content?

After all don't we believe in free speech, and in a free society don't you have to accept that other people can say what they want whether you like it or not? So wouldn't censoring this type of content from the station be hypocritical?

Yes, I know the US is already hypocritical on several issues, but why should we add more?

Personally, I think the station should air this type of content, but follow it up with a discussion on the problems with the content and what is morally right based on the religious principle of the region.

......................I may be playing the Devil's advocate here......................

While I agree the whole things is rather dumb, isn't it only fair that we allow a station we support to air this kind of content?

After all don't we believe in free speech, and in a free society don't you have to accept that other people can say what they want whether you like it or not? So wouldn't censoring this type of content from the station be hypocritical?

Yes, I know the US is already hypocritical on several issues, but why should we add more?

Personally, I think the station should air this type of content, but follow it up with a discussion on the problems with the content and what is morally right based on the religious principle of the region.

......................I may be playing the Devil's advocate here......................
That's a more complicated model of censorship than I think actually applies here. If the theory of the station is to project a positive image then there already a few elements in place.

First, there is the assumption that there is already a body exists that provides the opposite message. Now I'll grant that it is not really necessary, that a propaganda element can exist, and is its most effective, when it is unopposed, in this case we are to believe that this is true. Therefore, opposite voices do have a venue. If in addition to spreading its message the network also sought to interupt their opposite, then that would be censorship.

Second, the channel has that stated theme. Not showing programing that doesn't contribute to their broadcasting goals doesn't amount to censorship anymore than The Lifetime Network not showing football games would be censoring the NFL.

Freedom of speech is not a gaurantee of venue. Unless I become news I do not have access to the broadcasting resources of NBC.

So while it would be interesting that the channel would actually try in some manner of neutrality host the debate, I don't think not doing that can really be considered censorship.

I agree. It can't run any government programs well. Let's dissolve social security and the NSF.
If you're being facetious, it's hard to tell. Substitute NEA for NSF and you're 100 percent correct. The NSF may blunder into a couple of good deeds from time to time, but even then, we'd probably be money ahead if we did abolish it.

Oh no--this is not the government I want in charge of health care, just like it's not the government I wanted in charge of FEMA post-Katrina, or the military at any point in time, or just about anything else you can name. I want a competent government in charge of all that shit, you know, run by people who know what the fuck they're doing and who don't believe that government is always the problem. In short, I want the polar opposite of any government you would vote for in charge.
I guess we didn't have any of those on hand during the FDR administration, nor during the Truman administration. Probably not even during the Kennedy or LBJ administrations, either -- Even the Clintons only managed to perpetuate bad government. Old Calvin Coolidge was probably the last President that actually understood what government was good for.

And if you believe that there really is a bureaucracy out there that can do everything right, I'd say I want some of what you're smoking. I can't do that, but I wish I could alter my consciousness to that extreme on just bourbon...

I guess we didn't have any of those on hand during the FDR administration, nor during the Truman administration. Probably not even during the Kennedy or LBJ administrations, either -- Even the Clintons only managed to perpetuate bad government. Old Calvin Coolidge was probably the last President that actually understood what government was good for.

And if you believe that there really is a bureaucracy out there that can do everything right, I'd say I want some of what you're smoking. I can't do that, but I wish I could alter my consciousness to that extreme on just bourbon...

Now, I didn't say that a bureaucracy can do everything right, but there are plenty of bureaucracies that have done good jobs, better than private enterprise could have done them given the mandates they're saddled with. The Post Office is a great example of that.

But as to your snark on the Clintons--FEMA was a world class crisis response organization under Clinton and James Lee Witt and the VA became the rival of the Mayo Clinic in the US as far as medical treatment and research were concerned. Oh yeah--the Clintons were shining examples of perpetuating bad government. :rolleyes: