Slashdot Mirror

I don't care how valuable NPR is or thinks it is -- as long as they are funded through coercion (taxation), then I will treat them as an organization which is funded through coercion. That is, I will never so much as consider helping them, no matter how much they need it.

I don't care how valuable NPR is or thinks it is -- as long as they are funded through coercion (taxation), then I will treat them as an organization which is funded through coercion. That is, I will never so much as consider helping them, no matter how much they need it.

Yes, it is a new era, yes we need to face these challenges. Since NPR is our radio station, they owe more to the people than they do to their affiliates. If you look at their 2003 Annual Report you can see that they derive less than 3% of their annual revenue from members and that their internet initiatives account for 5% of their annual expenses. I say it's time for a paradigm shift in radio and let's see public radio lead that charge. Is there a chance that the affiliates will go under? Absolutely. Are we required to support those affiliates even as the world changes around them? No. Sure, my grandmother may not be able to listen to Prairie Home Companion until I come over and set her up with the podcast, but she is in the minority at this point in my opinion and that minority is getting smaller by attrition every year.

I heard a story about this on NPR. Although this article didn't make it clear, I believe NPR explained that the surgeries were performed when the patients were young children, and they are in their teens now.

Putting a very short advertisement at the beginning of the Podcast is an obvious solution to this problem. NPR already as 'brought to you by' segments between their shows anyway, so what is the difference? This would help pay for their costs and 5 seconds is not so long that it would be annoying, so everybody wins.

P.S. Frank DeFord had a great segment about A-Rod today.

YEAH, that bastard never helps anyone except himself.

I am fully aware of this.

Funny, because you're completely (and purposefully) ignoring it.

Erm - that is you - you are ignoring the expertise. It is the thousands of climatologists who are fully aware of solar maxima and minima. Please provide some substantial scientific publications that demonstrate that solar intensity changes do indeed account for all warming.

Oh no no no sir...you've got it all wrong here. You see, it is you who is propounding the idea that we need to reduce CO2 emissions in order to curb climate change, not I. I am saying there is not enough data to make such a conclusion. The burden of proof is on you, dear sir, to provide unquestionable, unassailable, irrefutable evidence backed by broad, overwhelming, near-total scientific consensus that there is a need to reduce CO2 emissions as you advocate. When you provide it, I will promptly, fully, and without reservation endorse the concept of reducing CO2 emissions. Until then, you're spouting poppycock with no proof. You, like thousands of others, are guessing about the cause. If you're going to advocate such sweeping ideas like banning or significantly curbing CO2 worldwide -- and the associated negative effects that could cause global economic catastrophe, especially for developing nations who are huge CO2 polluters -- you'd better have mighty good evidence supporting your position. You don't, and neither does anyone else.

Prove it. You claim it is a lie - then please provide numbers of papers for and against.

If you weren't so blind to things around you (or living in an echo chamber) you'd be aware there are vastly differing opinions on global warming/climate change/whatever. Since you've obviously been content to arrive at your predetermined conclusion, I have no doubt you haven't bothered to research anything that disagrees with said conclusion. However, I'll do you the service of puncturing your self-insulated little bubble with the results of a quick Google search:

Three Views on Global Warming
Research, and Life Experiences, Put Scientists at Odds

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

Myths of Global Warming

The global warming myth and its selfish defenders

This is just a quick sample of the 3,940,000 hits I got searching for global warming facts and myths. Seeing as how you're utterly unaware of nearly 3.5 million websites devoted the concept of disagreement over global warming/climate change/whatever, I can only conclude that you're either too stupid to search for it, too apathetic to care, or too biased to risk exposing yourself to contrary opinions. I'll be generous and say it's the latter, but you feel free to give me reason to change that assumption.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Yeah. I could actually believe someone would do the computer simulationsm, though there were clues even in that part of the article. Aside from the matter of how much genome data we have to start with, it's the kind of think you expect some team of grad students to come up with for fun in their off hours, like the guys who measured the flatness of a pancake in a laser microscope and compared it to elevation data for Kansas (to determine, one and for all, whether Kansas really is as flat as a pancake). Referring back to the older article with "Paolo Fril's" previous endeavor was a nice touch. It's not until you get to the "Let's synthesize the DNA and put it in a cell!" plan that the klaxons start *really* going off.

Terry Gross interviewed Steven Soderbergh and an analyst for Variety when Bubble came out. The anaylst interview is particularly interesting - it covers many of the issues both sides have with releasing movies on DVD at the same time as they are released to theatres.

Terry Gross interviewed Steven Soderbergh and an analyst for Variety when Bubble came out. The anaylst interview is particularly interesting - it covers many of the issues both sides have with releasing movies on DVD at the same time as they are released to theatres.

the bloody games industry pays worse than the entertainment industry, and yet, makes more money on its titles than movies do link HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

In the Motley Fool Radio Show several weeks back, they were discussing the Walmart Effect and how Snapper did not want to do business with Walmart because it would have ultimately destroyed Snapper current business.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5301103

This is old news.....NPR had a much better (IMHO) and more subjective story on this on March 6th. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5246856

From a memetic/cultural perspective. South Korean culture is flourishing (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5300970), and many people view Microsoft as floundering and reactionary (they change the name of outlook to match Apple Mail, redo large portins of Vista, and are often percieved as not having the consumers best interest in mind, opposed to Google who says 'lets not be evil' [whatever that means]). The hearts and minds of the people and therefore jurors and judges and beurocrats (unless, of course, it is a conspiracy) are not on Microsofts sides. Perception is everything. Microsoft will lose this.

For convenient podcast downloads for NON-iPod MP3 players, try iTunes + iTunes Agent.

iTunes
http://www.apple.com/itunes/

iTunes Agent - use any MP3 player with iTunes
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=54 9637

My Morning Playlist
Nature Podcast (science journal)
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/

NPR 5-minute News Summary
NPR Health & Science
NPR Technology
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_directory.p hp?type=topic

Democracy NOW! (news - better than NPR in some ways)
http://democracynow.org/podcast_help.shtml#feeds

Diggnation (latest general blog news from digg.com)
http://revision3.com/diggnation

This Week in Tech (weekly tech news)
http://twit.tv/podcastinfo

Security Now! (tech/security news)
http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm

President's Weekly Radio Address (comedy)
http://weeklyradioaddress.com/

and I used to listen to Ricky Gervais (comedy), but he charges $$ now.
http://www.rickygervais.com/podcast.php

I also use iTunes. It does the job just fine, but requires Windows-XP or a Mac. I occasionally use my Tivo for one-shot podcast listening as well.

Finding good podcasts is a challenge. Everyone has different tastes, and there's a lot of just plain crap out there. But here are a some that I like:

National Public Radio has lots of good news-related podcasts. The NPR Story of the Day cast is worth a listen, and Wait... Wait Don't Tell Me is hilarious.

Coverville is a popular music podcast. The show's host is very entertaining and well informed.

If you're into a cappella music, AcappellaU and the Acapodcast are two of my favorites.

NPR and Marketplace post podcasts of some of their more popular shows.

Check your local stations as well.

In fact, one of the challenges being identified by Public Broadcasters and others is how to let potential listeners know about downloadable/podcasted content.

I'd say that right now it comes down to luck and word of mouth. I'm finding that I tend to stick to content from "professional" broadcasters. So much of the rest of existing podcasts are "produced" by half drunk frat boys being potty mouths and playing indy rock.

As far as clients, iTunes really does podcasts pretty well. iPodder, at least on my old PC seemed to be a resource hog in some fashion.

Well, the obvious answer is to use the iTunes music store with an iPod - most podcasts worth listening to are on iTunes. The problem is that there are very few worth listening to. Most of them are consist of some guy with a nasal voice and no broadcasting skills, talking about something that would be better served by a regular blog post, and saying it poorly - "Uh... er... well..." and so on.

I've found that the only podcasts I end up listening to on a regular basis are the NPR ones (you can either get to them through npr.org or through iTunes).

NPR had a quickie about this this morning on the radio.

They led in with something like "Microsoft may lead stock drops this morning with the news they will be delaying the latest version of their Windows operating system". In their piece, they also mentioned there would be a management shake-up in the Windows development team, which got my attention more then the delay.

I can't find it mentioned anywhere else, and NPR's own site only has a small text blurb. I can't get the audio stream to work. byt maybe someone else can and check behind me.

Carl Kassell, of course. I mean, he's the only one you can get to record an answering machine message for you.

"And killing infant girls really isn't pervasive in modern China, even in rural areas, regardless of whatever uninformed drivel Microsoft-NBC is spewing today."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=3499024
http://www.bowdoin.edu/news/archives/sociology/000 040.shtml

"China's demographics don't add up, according to a new study. The country's 2000 census indicates 120 boys are born for every 100 girls, the highest ratio ever recorded in human history (in average populations, the sex ratio is 105 to 100)."

Can you locate a study suggesting a biological cause for this anomaly? Are you suggesting this is just a coincidence?

This Real Player-required audio report should help. The Bush administration doesn't like whistle blowers letting the public know about their illegal activities. So those leaks are going to stop. Except, of course, for the leaks that the administration wants to happen.

NPR has an area on their website covering not only this orbiter but past probes as well.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5257061

I'm not so sure that what you say really contradicts what I've said. First off, you will surely find anecdotes of people who think the government is going to miraculously do everything. You can find anecdotes to support just about any crazy conclusion, so let's leave them aside.

What I was basically trying to say was: While these people do get a little help from the government, I don't think there's any reason to believe that they had such faith in the government that they expect it to miraculously save them from a hurricane/flood. The government couldn't save them from their poverty, why would they expect it to save them from Katrina? The OP's assertion simply doesn't make sense.

Even if you are dirt poor, you can walk.

That's silly. Wealth and mobility are not at all related.

Also, people DID try to walk out of NO. Know what happened? They were fucking SHOT AT.

For people who shuddered when they saw that the paper reporting this had "Christian Science" in the name like I did, ...

I've been listening to NPR for some time now, and the first couple of times that there was a piece including a reporter from the Christian Science Monitor, I thought it was curious myself.

So I decided to do a general ear perk around the rest of the media, paying particular attention to what CSMonitor was doing. The evidence I saw was that CSMonitor is not only legitimate, but of high quality, and well-respected.

Another note, NPR in on a 10 year plan to take all of its stations digital using HD Radio. Currently over 50 NPR stations are multicasting using HD Radio today.

Another note, NPR in on a 10 year plan to take all of its stations digital using HD Radio. Currently over 50 NPR stations are multicasting using HD Radio today.

He relished the task, launching a reign of terror which was brutal even by the standards of the Baath Party.

According to opposition groups, thousands were murdered.

Victims were made to drink petrol before being set alight or strapped to concrete blocks and tipped into the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.

Bodies were bulldozed into the ground and, according to aid agencies, Al-Majid was filmed selecting Shia prisoners for execution. It was for his earlier atrocities, though, that he gained his nickname. He masterminded chemical attacks on Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.

On one occasion he rejected suggestions he had killed 182,000 people with the chilling reply: "No, it couldn't have been more than 100,000."

His most infamous outrage was the use of poison gas to kill thousands of Kurds at Halabja in 1988.

Human Rights Watch covers it.

The Telegraph has done a series of stories: here, here, and here:

Like thousands of other Kurds who lived in Halabja he had become inured to the frequent artillery bombardments launched by Baghdad's big guns across the valley.

It was not until he saw a yellow mist settling over the town that he realised this attack was different.

Within hours his five children had died an excruciating death. They were among about 5,000 Kurds killed by Saddam Hussein's poison gas on March 16, 1988, as he exacted a hideous revenge for their support of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Christian Science Monitor did this story:

The memory of every Iraqi Kurd is seared with vivid images of Baghdad's 1988 genocide against its own ethnic Kurds when troops loyal to the Iraqi strongman were under orders to kill every Kurdish male in northern Iraq between the ages of 18 and 55. During the Anfal campaign, rights groups say more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.

Some 5,000 Kurds died during the gassing of Halabja alone. The photograph of a man shielding an infant with his body ? both killed by gas ? has become an icon of Kurdish suffering and of Iraqi war crimes.

Although a part of the defense establishment didn't believe it for a time, the State Department apparently didn't get the word even in 2001.

This site has photos.

Why this should be hard to believe when Iraq was actively using chemical weapons against the Iranians at the time, and more and more mass graves with thousands of bodies from simple mass murder each are turning up in Iraq, I'll neven know.

Saddam's government apparently even killed as many as 61,000 just in Baghdad alone.

The survey obtained Monday, which the polling firm planned to release

Let's see, the New York Times sat on the NSA wiretap story for over a year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5058710) and now they're complaining that the USG isn't responding to the NYT's FOIA request quickly enough, after only a 2 month delay?

This is a load of bull. Not only that, but it's another example of the NYT's new spineless paradigm of roller-coaster reporting. They'll do something undeniably bad -- like publish "reporting" from Jayson Blair or Judy Miller, or sit on a huge story for a year. Then they'll attempt to swerve back the other direction -- Judy Miller is a First Amendment heroine, not a tool of the President! -- don't think of us as burying a story that could've affected the 2004 election, think of us as rebels pushing for information through FOIA!

So the NYT is paying some lawyers to sue in one FOIA case. So what? Wake me up when NYT has some accurate, significant news to report.

Til then, save your privacy accolades for organizations that fight *tirelessly* for such things, like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org/). You might note that EPIC filed their FOIA request for NSA documents earlier than the NYT last December (more evidence that the NYT is pussy-footing around), and filed suit in January for the USG's noncompliance with FOIA. Before the NYT ever annnounced their PR stunt FOIA lawsuit, EPIC had already received favorable rulings in court -- http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/default.html, http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=electronic+priv acy+information+center%2C+rotenberg&sort=DREDATE%3 Anumberdecreasing&aggId=0&prgId=3&topicId=0&how_lo ng_ago=0

Let's see, the New York Times sat on the NSA wiretap story for over a year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5058710) and now they're complaining that the USG isn't responding to the NYT's FOIA request quickly enough, after only a 2 month delay?

This is a load of bull. Not only that, but it's another example of the NYT's new spineless paradigm of roller-coaster reporting. They'll do something undeniably bad -- like publish "reporting" from Jayson Blair or Judy Miller, or sit on a huge story for a year. Then they'll attempt to swerve back the other direction -- Judy Miller is a First Amendment heroine, not a tool of the President! -- don't think of us as burying a story that could've affected the 2004 election, think of us as rebels pushing for information through FOIA!

So the NYT is paying some lawyers to sue in one FOIA case. So what? Wake me up when NYT has some accurate, significant news to report.

Til then, save your privacy accolades for organizations that fight *tirelessly* for such things, like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org/). You might note that EPIC filed their FOIA request for NSA documents earlier than the NYT last December (more evidence that the NYT is pussy-footing around), and filed suit in January for the USG's noncompliance with FOIA. Before the NYT ever annnounced their PR stunt FOIA lawsuit, EPIC had already received favorable rulings in court -- http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/default.html, http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=electronic+priv acy+information+center%2C+rotenberg&sort=DREDATE%3 Anumberdecreasing&aggId=0&prgId=3&topicId=0&how_lo ng_ago=0

Very cool! The group I work with recently had some interesting results when comparing Yahoo and Google Maps. Among other things, we found that Yahoo is much better with directions on street addresses. For example, Yahoo will convert "North" to "N" and "South" to "S" automatically, whereas Google will ask you the "Did you Mean _____?" question. I remembered this story on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5140674) that did a comparison of the different online maps and their accuracy. Quite interesting that they all use very similar (if not the same) data.

How about productions by ... NPR?"

Well their website has a lot of stuff archived. The link on the main page to "Archives" would be a good place to start. Some of the other shows that NPR stations play are available through Audible for a fee.

"Or if the Republican positions on the ballot weren't at the top (enum 0)"

Well, I would imagine that's because they do it alphabetically. 'Bush' is pretty high, alphabetically.

That was the democrats mistake in 2004! They shouldn't have nominated John Kerry. They should have nominated Carol Moseley Braun. Or Willie Aames.

In any case, the story is definitely worth a listen.

>>...or maybe it's the drunken 24 year old who hates black people, gays and anyone who isn't in his frat.

> Why is a 24 year old in a frat? Are these 7 or 8 year college students the target demographic for the XBox?

Delta House now features Xbox instead of keggers.

There was a story on NPR yesterday about this; Robert Siegel spoke with a man in Beijing and they compared searches, Robert on google.com and the other guy on google.cn. When asked if the Chinese people were finding ways around the censorship, the guy in Beijing replied that some had found ways around it, but that most were content with what they were being fed. You can listen to the segment at this link .

Sort of like in this country with the whole illegal wiretapping fiasco.

I'm really glad you posted that link. This is the kind of information that needs to get out. I listed to this NPR storry, which is about six months old: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4832608

So...
It WAS the case that E85 WAS cheaper than regular gasoline and E85 was in short supply, but market conditions apparently changed that. Maybe some higher demand for E85 (not enough supply)? Maybe some lower demand for gasoline (plently of supply available now)?

The article says that E85 contains ~72% as much energy as typical gasoline. (This I've read many other places and I haven't seen it dispute.) Since it's 72% as much engery in every gallon the article says E85 needs to sell at 72% the price of gasoline "To be an even-up energy value..." Well, that ignores the efficiency of the vechiles engines under each fuel, but its an easy calculation for JOE CONSUMER to do.

"Ok, self...
If( E85.cost Buy E85
Else
Buy Gas
End

....", JOE CONSUMER says to himself. (well maybe that's not too easy for everyone, but lots of cell phones have calculators now-a-days).

Anyway, this is good, its the market working, and the market can be manipulated to work in certain ways. How? Well, taxes is one way. Whenever (E85.cost >= Gas.Cost * 0.72) Tax OIL IMPORTS at an additional 10% to make the equation (E85.cost
When a super majority of vehicles in the US can use E85, then just tax the heck out of oil imports.

First, I would strongly recommend that people listen to this clip on NPR's All Things Considered: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5206172 because it goes into a lot more depth and offers more insight than the BBC article.

1) A government for a country of that size is NOT monolithic. For example, it would be foolish to say that everyone in the US government is in favor of having troops in Iraq: there are a lot of Senators who are not happy at all. Likewise, the Chinese government has various factions. Because there is only one political party in China, political differences are expressed in the form of intra-party factionalism (whereas in the West, it is normally expressed in the form of different parties, though there are also a lot of intra-party factionalism as well). A lot of this in-fighting also happens privately, so many are not aware of it and the casual observer would think that the government was a Borg collective of identical viewpoints when it really is not.

2) This letter was written by what NPR news describes to be the "liberal wing" of the party and can be considered to be more or less a dissident voice. Such opinions are not new in China, and if you ever go there, you will notice that a lot of people will express these views (the Chinese are not stupid), except that they will express them privately, and you never hear about it in the media. I was personally very surprised that this letter of published. These folks are sufficiently power and well-connected that they are able to dissent like this.

3) I think that their target audience is the Chinese people and the rest of the government. You have to understand that the whole appeal of the Chinese Revolution is that the old government was corrupt and abusive, and there are many Chinese have not forgotten that and who are well aware of the irony that China threw out a bad government and replaced it with another bad one.

So I would not view this as some sort of public press release (that was earlier today, when they justified censorship on grounds of "pornography", which is bullshit). The earlier announcement today would be like Bush telling the UN why we need troops in Iraq. This letter would be like the Democrats grumbling about Bush putting those troops in Iraq.

Right. If children can survive waging real wars, I don't think we really need to worry about them playing violent video games, or seeing breasts when they're [greater than] 2 AND [less than] 18 years old.

Moreover, as anyone who was a kid should remember (which makes me wonder where these people come from), the more emphasis adults place on something, whether positive or negative, the more important that thing becomes to the child. "Values" aren't just transferred in the moral sense of the word, but also in the literal sense. Extreme reactions to any behavior only causes kids to place a higher value on it, because obviously their parents do as well, which makes them more likely to do it. If parents get upset when their kids curse, their kids will curse when they want to make their parents upset. The greater the reaction, the more they'll do it. I guess what I'm saying is, kids are basically little terrorists.

That's true. Federal funding for education has gone up about 40 percent since 2001. But in the last two budgets (including 2007), education funding has been flat or it has been reduced. This comes at a time when the No Child Left Behind Act is forcing states to spend a lot more money on testing, teacher training and school improvement to meet the law's mandates.

Taken from an NPR acticle here

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5192631

Its not fox so we know that it must be biased

This may not be the story in question, but I did find something about Seattle middle-school students being screened in a similar fashion.

Now that's some radio with good taste. Many, many thanks. :)
Guess I'll return the favor... if you haven't listened to it already, All Songs Considered is probably my favorite place to go for new and good music, with all previous shows archived.

I completely agree. The US censors too just for different reasons. But we here in the states like to think we're superior. Our ruling institutions exercise just as much control as China's. China is demonized because it makes a good story in the media.

The US was the first country to censor Google.

I completely disagree with you on many of these issues. The US is not a democracy. Ostensibly it's a Republic or a Democratic Republic. But in actuality the US is a coporate state. The US is NOT a free market. The economic system practiced here is NOT capitalism. US corporations lobby to have laws passed which maximize their profits and increase their market share. If you don't have the funds to influence law, then your business will be at a disadvantage in the US economy.

China is a totalitarian state where a few individuals control all aspects of the economy and the law. In the US this system is essentially replicated with leaders of major corporations controlling US economy and law.

Google is censored in China to protect those in charge: totalitarian political leaders. GOOGLE IS CENSORED IN THE US to protect those in charge: our corporate totalitarian leaders. THE US WAS THE FIRST COUNTRY TO CENSOR GOOGLE! Just because it wasn't our "government" doing it doesn't make much difference. The "government" in the US is rich corporations.

I remember Brin of Google (or was it the other one?) on an NPR interview a couple of years ago. It went something like this:

NPR Host (Terry Gross): blah blah Brin of Google. Blah blah countries want to censor Google. Are there a lot of countries that want you to censor search results?

Brin: Oh yeah.

Gross: Like what countries?

Brin: Well, the United States.

Gross: Oh I'm sorry, I wanted to know which countries forced Google to censor their search results....

Brin: Yes, the United States.

Gross: I'm sorry?

Brin: US corporations force us, using political and legal pressure, to censor websites they claim are stealing their intellectual property. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act - bitch!

Here's the interview.

This intellectual property thing is BS, just so you peanut gallery people know. The church of Scientology has successfully used IP law to force Google to censor sites that criticize Scientology. I'm sure there is other stupid BS like that around too. Type "xenu" into Google and scroll to the bottom.

The US is no different than China. Google censors sites for the totalitarians of the US just as they do for China. I guess everyone wants to believe that the US is some bastion of "freedom" but give me a break! There is a ruling class in every country and these overlords do everything they can to maintain and increase their power. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and that's it. Welcome to the real world. Stop getting your panties in a bunch over this "freedom" propaganda.

Damn I hate Terry Gross.

but to be fair, Bush is in fact a white, male, Christian, racist, pro-life-but-also-for-capital-punishment Republican. Stereotypes may be overgeneralized or may lead to prejudice in some cases, but in this case Bush fits the stereotype to a tee.

Of course he is white, male, Christian, pro-life, and pro-capital punishment, but you forgot your source that PROVES he is a racist, so here it is: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4848961

TWiT: This Week in Tech (former Tech TV Screensavers)
dl.tv (former Tech TV Screensavers)
diggnation (again, former Tech TV Screensavers)
CreativeCOW.net (Digital Media)
Shields and Brooks (Newshour Political Podcast)
NPR Technology (collected stories about tech from the previous week)
KCRW's The Treatment
Ricky Gervais (BBC's The Office, Extras)

You either listen to NPR or you're just on the same page as Google is. I say this because they said basically the same thing yesterday as what you just did.