Sunday December 8, 2013
Jump to content
By the way, Tom... if you know the federal government as well as you say you do, you also know that the only reason the Forest Service even held these "town hall" meetings is that it's just one more box that needed to be checked off in their inexorable march toward a predetermined outcome: Complete closure of the area for an undetermined period while they "analyze" the options, then total removal of any and all access from the Strawberry side, with extreme restrictions on access, if any at all, from Camp Verde. They have no money left, and must get by on even less in the foreseeable years to come. It's a matter of priorities, and as in all federal agencies, Priority Number One is survival of the bureaucracy. Again, I say let our own Parks system handle it so that we, the people, can enjoy, respect and support it.
Why the National Park Service? It's in Arizona... it's a unique area in this state... it's just by virtue of a federal land grab that it lies within the boundaries of a National Forest. If any government agency should be trusted with its stewardship, I would recommend the Arizona State Parks... just look at the excellent job they're doing with the rehabilitation and management Tonto Natural Bridge.
LOL! The moral here...? Make a decision... and make it one you can live with!
I'm with you, Pat... I buy my paper off the rack at WalMart... I probably wouldn't even have noticed the whole Google thing had I not followed a link on Twitter... I don't know, maybe it was Facebook... either way, I couldn't get to the story without jumping through a Google hoop, and it just irked me.
Like Ron, my enmity towards Google has grown lately, mostly due to their complicity in allowing agencies within our government, among them the IRS and the NSA, to use Google's considerable resources to spy on everyday, average Americans, resources that are much more invasive and comprehensive than the commercially-oriented opinion surveys we've been discussing here. The facts are out there... the stories have been written... they're just difficult to find... try to Google them.
So, until I see a little less monopolistic arrogance, and a little more advocacy for people as opposed to corporations and / or government, I'm simply choosing not to contribute to their coffers, if and when it's convenient for me to do so.
I do appreciate Mr. Naughton's argument in defense of the program, though, particularly since I am acutely aware of how hard it is on firms that operate primarily on an advertising-based revenue business model. All one has to do is look to the paid advertising in virtually any newspaper to see which sectors of the economy are and are not participating in "The Recovery." But even after all of that, I still can't read his remarks without feeling a disturbing twinge, a haunting reminder of what many thought to be the long-dead history of an oppression made possible in part by a compliant press, run by otherwise good (business)men who found that they could justify a "lesser" wrong only by comparing it to something worse.
In other words, rather than use the invasive surveillance techniques and information gathering practices of internet service providers as justification for more of the same, Google should use its industry dominance and political influence to help eliminate these activities altogether.
My experience on this end is the same as Bernice's, Tom... the content of the article is still redacted until and unless I submit to an unsolicited, self-serving, commercially motivated and potentially invasive survey... or I can "invite" all my social media friends and followers to visit the page, which exposes them to the same paradox - either knuckle-under to Google's latest take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, or simply do as Ron suggests and take our patronage elsewhere.
Pardon my gross Angle-Saxon vernacular, Tom, but this totally sucks.
The only upside that I see to this is that, knowing Google's rather anal fixation on hits, heuristics and human behavior, the Roundup portion of the partnership will soon have access to the traffic numbers (but only those which Google allows them to see). Depending upon how much transparency (or trust) there is in the relationship, those figures may help determine if the paid advertisers on those unseen, click-thru pages are, indeed, getting their money's worth.
Personally, if it were anyone but Google, it might not bother me at all to fill out the survey... but I don't live under a rock - over the last couple of years, Google has gotten just a little too cozy with too many of the surveillance arms of our ever-expanding federal government, and I simply won't support that trend. I'll continue to use their search engine because it's free and it's the best there is, Microsoft's Bing hyperbole notwithstanding. But I will not click on one of their paid links, nor will I ever patronize one of their promoted advertisers, even if the product or service is exactly what I'm looking for - and it always is, because as we all are beginning to realize, Google knows everything.
OK, that's all... gonna go hang up my tin foil hat. :)
Hi Tom... it's been awhile.
What do you know about this new "partnership" between the Roundup newspaper and Google? In order to read an entire story, one must now fill out and submit a survey form, or as an alternative, promote the page on social media (Twitter or Facebook?), presumably so that someone else will then visit the page and be faced with the same Hobson's Choice - either a) submit to a survey in order to read the redacted text, b) send out a link to the page to all your social media "friends" and "followers" in order to read the redacted text, or c) just fuhgeddaboudit.
And, not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but I find one element in all this very interesting, and another quite curious... the interesting item is that the Roundup / Google committee has opted to use heavy-handed, in-your-face, government-style redaction of the text in the article, a la IRS / NSA / FOIA / etc., rather than the more friendly pop-ups used in other paywall-type news sites... and secondly, I find myself wondering if it's more than coincidence that on the same day this announcement appeared online, I noticed a story in our local paper originating from the Cronkite News Service, an arguably left-leaning petri dish for the growth and indoctrination of pro-Big Government journalists?
If you have the low-down and feel comfortable sharing it on this thread, that would be great. If not, I will understand and, as I mentioned earlier, just fuhgeddaboudit.
Partnership...? Sorry, but it looks more like a kidnapping to me. And I'm just curious, comrade, are the pro-Big Government stories from the Cronkite News Service included in that partnership?
OMG! The sheriff "excavated" the 20 - 30 residents that lived nearby... had they been buried alive all this time?!?!?
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
All this "concern" over a national death toll, but not one word about the thousands of illegal aliens - men, woman, children and infants - who have died and continue to die an unimaginably agonizing death right here in Arizona trying to cross our parched southern deserts. Securing the border will go a long way toward solving both problems! IMHO
PS: Since the title of this article chides REPUBLICAN lawmakers for their unwillingness to face reality, I've included a photo of just one dead immigrant in the desert. Let's just see how much "reality" we can stand...
Last login: Saturday, September 7, 2013