Not true. Palin had two Yahoo accounts. After this account was hacked and found to be innocuous, crazy lefties said "Well then it must have been the other one." (Of course, there was never any evidence of this.) Because God forbid a government official may want an off the record account (or several) specifically so private, non-state related business remained private and non-state related.
Let's also remember that the kid's father is a Democrat state congressman.
Just a reminder.
New years day 2009 (two years ago) all first gen Zunes failed. For an interesting experiment, match up people defending Apple in this story with people who bashed Microsoft in that story. Or vice versa, I suppose
Again, what if this was Microsoft, and Zunes stopped working because of leap year related issues. Would you have excused them? Or would you have posted "I have to wonder why MS's quality assurance department (don't laugh, they must have one) didn't try setting the clock ahead to see what happens?"
it is a foolish belief that you have, regarding 'choosing not to do business with.
VISA, Mastercard, PayPal and whomever else have the right of free association. They get to choose not to do business with Wikileaks for whatever reasons they see fit. Maybe they don't want to support it because they think Assange is a rapist. Maybe they don't want to support it because they think that what he's doing is illegal, and they don't want to have to pay for the lawyers to get them off the hook. Maybe they actually don't think he should be leaking this stuff. Maybe they make all their business decisions by flipping a coin.
It doesn't matter why they chose not to do it, but they get to make their own decisions, for better or worse. That's what "freedom of association" means. THAT's the freedom of association GP was talking about. The payment processors can choose not to do business with wikileaks, and other organizations can boycott.
They fired Juan Williams for being an asshole. He broke their code of conduct and tried to maintain two parallel careers: one on NPR where he was a sober centrist, and one on Fox News where he was a black liberal who somehow agreed with everything the conservative hosts said.
Hmm... is there a word for a liberal who agrees with a lot of conservative ideas? A middlist? I will think of something.
NPR didn't want someone who thinks everyone should feel nervous if they see a muslim at the airport. I don't blame them, and they have every right to fire someone for advocating racism.
That's not what he said. He was arguing for profiling, because most of the people who want to blow up planes happen to be Muslim. Nuns and children aren't the ones trying to sneak explosives onto the plane.
I'm saying that claiming NPR is pushing a "Liberal Agenda" is total bullshit made up by conservatives.
Except for the examples that I gave.
Also, conservatives constantly lie about what liberals think, for example claiming that we want to take all religion out of public life.
Sarah Palin told Diane Sawyer during the campaign that she would pull her children out of a public school that taught intelligent design. Yet she's seen by the general public as someone who wants to push her religion on people. Did conservatives push this?
But really, what I mean is that the phrase "Liberal Agenda" is a red flag, and tells my brain to prepare for a volley of bullshit, because no one who actually wanted to talk reasonably about current events or politics would ever say that. Specifically, referring to Obama, Reid and Democrats generally as "liberals" sounds so dumb to liberals that it makes it hard to respond to anything you said.
When people agree on the kind of things they think the government should be doing, they form a political party. The group of people that think problems are best solved by government stepping in and providing a solution are called liberals. In modern American politics, most of the liberals are in the Democratic Party.
All political parties exist to further the interests (agenda)of the people who vote for them. The Democrat Party exists to further the interests (agenda) of its members, who are liberals. Because Obama and Reid are high ranking Democrats, their agenda and the agenda of the party are closely aligned.
Of course there's a liberal agenda. Sharing a certain set of values and goals is what makes a liberal a liberal.
Well, they fired Juan Williams from his commentary job at NPR for daring to be a commentator on Fox News. (The racism thing was nonsense, by the way. In the wake of his firing, they said they got complaints from listeners about how Williams "didn't fit in" at NPR, which they used to justify telling him he couldn't identify himself on Fox as an NPR commentator and trying to push him out. This was before the "racism" thing.)
Or you could look at NPR asking Republican leaders about the earmarks that "Republicans and some Democrats" added to the omnibus spending bill. In reality, 99% of the earmarks were earmarked by Democrats, but NPR was trying to send the opposite message.
Also, are you saying that there's no such thing as the liberal agenda at all? You can argue that NPR shouldn't be pushing it, but there IS a liberal agenda. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Democrats generally want specific things pushed for. That's why they're members of the same political party.
It can, if the existing spectrum is near totally used.
Which, in television, it is pretty much everywhere. Some parts of the country (I live near New York) the radio spectrum is full too. Which is the only thing I said.
And the amount of subsidy a local PBS/NPR affiliate receives is pretty small, and the rest is made up of viewer/listener contributions and private donations
OK fine. Conservatives don't have a problem with small, donation funded radio. But
(the programming, however, is more centrally produced, usually by the local affiliates in large markets, such as Boston or New York.)
The problem is that they take government money (read: money out of my pocket, and yours (if you live in the US) and everyone else who pays taxes) to produce this programming, large parts of which are pushing a liberal agenda. If you want to watch Liberal Agenda News, I've got no problem with that. MSNBC is probably part of your cable package. They make their money off you watching their ads. Cost to me? Nothing.
As long as you have a competitive process for allocating the licenses, you are choosing the highest-value broadcasters.
And as long as you're subsidizing the liberal agenda through tax dollars, you're not choosing the highest value use of those tax dollars.
Pressed? Seriously? The three biggest stars on Fox News (Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly) all have commentary radio programs working for other organizations. (Beck and Hannity, at least, are also on ABC's payroll.) Their Fox News programs are clearly commentary and not news, which is why they're allowed to donate to political candidates. By contrast, MSNBC claims Keith Olbermann is a journalist, which is why he was suspended for violating MSNBC rules that ban journalists from donating to political candidates. (Olbermann's show is substantially the same as Glenn Beck's, but with more crazy.) Fox News has the same rules, but they only apply them to journalists. The New York Times also bans reporters (journalists) but not columnists (commentators) from donating to political candidates.
Also, "The larger government is, the fewer choices the individual has" is not obvious and requires a ton of proof. For example, does the existence of publicly funded TV and radio stations decrease the number of sources for TV or radio programming?
That New Yorker article pretty much describes the EXACT OPPOSITE of what journalism is. You see Assange and his team trying to craft their message in the Collateral Murder video for maximum emotional impact, so it can advance their agenda. Because it's the New Yorker, you don't see the fact that part of his editing is removing the careful deliberations that they went through before engaging. This is edited out so that Assange can call them careless. This piece makes it clear that WikiLeaks has an agenda beyond "information wants to be free."
By contrast, journalists are supposed to report the bare facts, and leave it to others to interpret what they mean. Any piece including the opinion of its creator is NOT journalism.
There are other kinds of writing than journalism. Tom Clancy writes novels. He's not a journalist. The New Yorker is a commentary magazine. They're not journalists either. Assange is an activist, and he leads an organization of other activists. Assange and Wikileaks put out source documents, and then go interpret them. Those interpretations are agenda driven, which is why they're not journalism, which is why he's not a journalist.
He's not a journalist. At best, he's a source that journalists use. (Technically, he's not even that. Manning allegedly gave the documents to Assange. If this is true (innocent until proven guilty), Manning is the source. Whether he got the documents from Manning or somebody else, Assange is only an intermedieary between journalists and the source.)
This is excluding the fact that journalists are supposed to have principles and standards. It's not a perfect process, but at least the NYT and CNN are trying to redact most of the worst of the stuff.
If the democrats had more spine, they/would/ re-staff these organisations, and buy a TV channel that exclusively tells their side of the story - a homolouge to fox. But alas, democrats generally believe in being educated, and that means listening to others.
O'Reilly and Hannity have liberal guests on their programs. Olbermann doesn't have conservatives on, ever, and NPR fired Juan Williams for being one of Fox News' liberal commentators. Who listens to others again?
A hipster praises Y because it's "not in" and dismisses X with the hare-brained excuse that it is on the list of things he should like. I really hope hipsters are real-life trolls, but I can't honestly say I'm sure.
That would mean they spend months coordinating with journalists to redact names and other information that might put individuals' lives at risk. Then, they would only release a few select important parts of the material in a completely responsible manner.
Of course, that is not what the editors and poster were trying to convey by 'WikiLeaks' style.
In fairness, journalists aren't the ones making the calls to redact from wikileaks. Wikileaks has started to do some redaction, and then releasing their documents. Journalists/their bosses are deciding that wikileaks isn't redacting nearly enough, and applying further redaction. Take, for example, the list of sites that are vital to the security of the US, which includes mines and undersea communications cables that are located outside the US. Does it surprise ANYONE that a list like this exists, or that the US needs minerals or communications from foreign countries? If this list was redacted to CNN's standard, there wouldn't be enough left to be worth releasing. Yet, when the list was released, CNN's story was all about the fact that the leak had taken place, and there was a line in there about "CNN has obtained a copy of the list, but is not revealing any of the actual locations."
In even more fairness, journalists aren't the ones editing exonerating evidence out of tapes and then calling the edited tape Collateral Murder, which is another example of "wikileaks style" editing.
The release TO Wikileaks is what was illegal. Since Assange isn't a journalist and wikileaks isn't a media organization, they may or may not have committed illegal acts (soliciting people to commit espionage) as well. But for Manning (or theoretically someone else, I guess) to give them the documents in the first place was "an illegal release of classified information."
No, Al Gore was referring to the need to expand government to protect us from a specific supposed threat. Gore was defending climate change legislation from charges that it was enacted by fear-mongering.
If the best prediction of scientists right now is that the globe is warming to a level that will cause global calamity, then maybe we need climate change legislation. But if it can be shown that the models are wrong, we should be ready to get rid of climate change legislation. (Gore doesn't want that, because he's a politician and that would be too threatening to him.) And if it can be shown that the climate scientists are conspiring to keep dissenters from getting peer review, or if they were combining two disjoint data sets to "hide the decline", or if they were destroying their raw data to keep others from trying to replicate their results, maybe we need new climate scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. Palin had two Yahoo accounts. After this account was hacked and found to be innocuous, crazy lefties said "Well then it must have been the other one." (Of course, there was never any evidence of this.) Because God forbid a government official may want an off the record account (or several) specifically so private, non-state related business remained private and non-state related.
Let's also remember that the kid's father is a Democrat state congressman.
Just a reminder.
You're holding it wrong.
New years day 2009 (two years ago) all first gen Zunes failed. For an interesting experiment, match up people defending Apple in this story with people who bashed Microsoft in that story. Or vice versa, I suppose
Again, what if this was Microsoft, and Zunes stopped working because of leap year related issues. Would you have excused them? Or would you have posted "I have to wonder why MS's quality assurance department (don't laugh, they must have one) didn't try setting the clock ahead to see what happens?"
it is a foolish belief that you have, regarding 'choosing not to do business with.
VISA, Mastercard, PayPal and whomever else have the right of free association. They get to choose not to do business with Wikileaks for whatever reasons they see fit. Maybe they don't want to support it because they think Assange is a rapist. Maybe they don't want to support it because they think that what he's doing is illegal, and they don't want to have to pay for the lawyers to get them off the hook. Maybe they actually don't think he should be leaking this stuff. Maybe they make all their business decisions by flipping a coin.
It doesn't matter why they chose not to do it, but they get to make their own decisions, for better or worse. That's what "freedom of association" means. THAT's the freedom of association GP was talking about. The payment processors can choose not to do business with wikileaks, and other organizations can boycott.
On a related note, no true bachelor is married.
So my points themselves go unchallenged? OK then.
He must be a false flag.
They fired Juan Williams for being an asshole. He broke their code of conduct and tried to maintain two parallel careers: one on NPR where he was a sober centrist, and one on Fox News where he was a black liberal who somehow agreed with everything the conservative hosts said.
Hmm... is there a word for a liberal who agrees with a lot of conservative ideas? A middlist? I will think of something.
NPR didn't want someone who thinks everyone should feel nervous if they see a muslim at the airport. I don't blame them, and they have every right to fire someone for advocating racism.
That's not what he said. He was arguing for profiling, because most of the people who want to blow up planes happen to be Muslim. Nuns and children aren't the ones trying to sneak explosives onto the plane.
I'm saying that claiming NPR is pushing a "Liberal Agenda" is total bullshit made up by conservatives.
Except for the examples that I gave.
Also, conservatives constantly lie about what liberals think, for example claiming that we want to take all religion out of public life.
Sarah Palin told Diane Sawyer during the campaign that she would pull her children out of a public school that taught intelligent design. Yet she's seen by the general public as someone who wants to push her religion on people. Did conservatives push this?
But really, what I mean is that the phrase "Liberal Agenda" is a red flag, and tells my brain to prepare for a volley of bullshit, because no one who actually wanted to talk reasonably about current events or politics would ever say that. Specifically, referring to Obama, Reid and Democrats generally as "liberals" sounds so dumb to liberals that it makes it hard to respond to anything you said.
When people agree on the kind of things they think the government should be doing, they form a political party. The group of people that think problems are best solved by government stepping in and providing a solution are called liberals. In modern American politics, most of the liberals are in the Democratic Party.
All political parties exist to further the interests (agenda)of the people who vote for them. The Democrat Party exists to further the interests (agenda) of its members, who are liberals. Because Obama and Reid are high ranking Democrats, their agenda and the agenda of the party are closely aligned.
Of course there's a liberal agenda. Sharing a certain set of values and goals is what makes a liberal a liberal.
Or you could look at NPR asking Republican leaders about the earmarks that "Republicans and some Democrats" added to the omnibus spending bill. In reality, 99% of the earmarks were earmarked by Democrats, but NPR was trying to send the opposite message.
Also, are you saying that there's no such thing as the liberal agenda at all? You can argue that NPR shouldn't be pushing it, but there IS a liberal agenda. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Democrats generally want specific things pushed for. That's why they're members of the same political party.
It can, if the existing spectrum is near totally used.
Which, in television, it is pretty much everywhere. Some parts of the country (I live near New York) the radio spectrum is full too. Which is the only thing I said.
And the amount of subsidy a local PBS/NPR affiliate receives is pretty small, and the rest is made up of viewer/listener contributions and private donations
OK fine. Conservatives don't have a problem with small, donation funded radio. But
(the programming, however, is more centrally produced, usually by the local affiliates in large markets, such as Boston or New York.)
The problem is that they take government money (read: money out of my pocket, and yours (if you live in the US) and everyone else who pays taxes) to produce this programming, large parts of which are pushing a liberal agenda. If you want to watch Liberal Agenda News, I've got no problem with that. MSNBC is probably part of your cable package. They make their money off you watching their ads. Cost to me? Nothing.
As long as you have a competitive process for allocating the licenses, you are choosing the highest-value broadcasters.
And as long as you're subsidizing the liberal agenda through tax dollars, you're not choosing the highest value use of those tax dollars.
Pressed? Seriously? The three biggest stars on Fox News (Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly) all have commentary radio programs working for other organizations. (Beck and Hannity, at least, are also on ABC's payroll.) Their Fox News programs are clearly commentary and not news, which is why they're allowed to donate to political candidates. By contrast, MSNBC claims Keith Olbermann is a journalist, which is why he was suspended for violating MSNBC rules that ban journalists from donating to political candidates. (Olbermann's show is substantially the same as Glenn Beck's, but with more crazy.) Fox News has the same rules, but they only apply them to journalists. The New York Times also bans reporters (journalists) but not columnists (commentators) from donating to political candidates.
NPR? At least so long as you don't mind hearing from frustrated rational conservatives as well.
Like Juan Williams?
Also, "The larger government is, the fewer choices the individual has" is not obvious and requires a ton of proof. For example, does the existence of publicly funded TV and radio stations decrease the number of sources for TV or radio programming?
When there's a limited spectrum it does.
That New Yorker article pretty much describes the EXACT OPPOSITE of what journalism is. You see Assange and his team trying to craft their message in the Collateral Murder video for maximum emotional impact, so it can advance their agenda. Because it's the New Yorker, you don't see the fact that part of his editing is removing the careful deliberations that they went through before engaging. This is edited out so that Assange can call them careless. This piece makes it clear that WikiLeaks has an agenda beyond "information wants to be free."
By contrast, journalists are supposed to report the bare facts, and leave it to others to interpret what they mean. Any piece including the opinion of its creator is NOT journalism.
There are other kinds of writing than journalism. Tom Clancy writes novels. He's not a journalist. The New Yorker is a commentary magazine. They're not journalists either. Assange is an activist, and he leads an organization of other activists. Assange and Wikileaks put out source documents, and then go interpret them. Those interpretations are agenda driven, which is why they're not journalism, which is why he's not a journalist.
He's not a journalist. At best, he's a source that journalists use. (Technically, he's not even that. Manning allegedly gave the documents to Assange. If this is true (innocent until proven guilty), Manning is the source. Whether he got the documents from Manning or somebody else, Assange is only an intermedieary between journalists and the source.)
This is excluding the fact that journalists are supposed to have principles and standards. It's not a perfect process, but at least the NYT and CNN are trying to redact most of the worst of the stuff.
It is the law still. And apparently, if you're not registered, you might want to post as AC.
Well, Anonymous's influence is going downhill, like you would on a water slide.
If the democrats had more spine, they /would/ re-staff these organisations, and buy a TV channel that exclusively tells their side of the story - a homolouge to fox. But alas, democrats generally believe in being educated, and that means listening to others.
O'Reilly and Hannity have liberal guests on their programs. Olbermann doesn't have conservatives on, ever, and NPR fired Juan Williams for being one of Fox News' liberal commentators. Who listens to others again?
A hipster praises Y because it's "not in" and dismisses X with the hare-brained excuse that it is on the list of things he should like. I really hope hipsters are real-life trolls, but I can't honestly say I'm sure.
That would mean they spend months coordinating with journalists to redact names and other information that might put individuals' lives at risk. Then, they would only release a few select important parts of the material in a completely responsible manner.
Of course, that is not what the editors and poster were trying to convey by 'WikiLeaks' style.
In fairness, journalists aren't the ones making the calls to redact from wikileaks. Wikileaks has started to do some redaction, and then releasing their documents. Journalists/their bosses are deciding that wikileaks isn't redacting nearly enough, and applying further redaction. Take, for example, the list of sites that are vital to the security of the US, which includes mines and undersea communications cables that are located outside the US. Does it surprise ANYONE that a list like this exists, or that the US needs minerals or communications from foreign countries? If this list was redacted to CNN's standard, there wouldn't be enough left to be worth releasing. Yet, when the list was released, CNN's story was all about the fact that the leak had taken place, and there was a line in there about "CNN has obtained a copy of the list, but is not revealing any of the actual locations."
In even more fairness, journalists aren't the ones editing exonerating evidence out of tapes and then calling the edited tape Collateral Murder, which is another example of "wikileaks style" editing.
The release TO Wikileaks is what was illegal. Since Assange isn't a journalist and wikileaks isn't a media organization, they may or may not have committed illegal acts (soliciting people to commit espionage) as well. But for Manning (or theoretically someone else, I guess) to give them the documents in the first place was "an illegal release of classified information."
They did.
No, Al Gore was referring to the need to expand government to protect us from a specific supposed threat. Gore was defending climate change legislation from charges that it was enacted by fear-mongering.
If the best prediction of scientists right now is that the globe is warming to a level that will cause global calamity, then maybe we need climate change legislation. But if it can be shown that the models are wrong, we should be ready to get rid of climate change legislation. (Gore doesn't want that, because he's a politician and that would be too threatening to him.) And if it can be shown that the climate scientists are conspiring to keep dissenters from getting peer review, or if they were combining two disjoint data sets to "hide the decline", or if they were destroying their raw data to keep others from trying to replicate their results, maybe we need new climate scientists.
Global warming is part of a machiavellian plot by...by...someone...who wants to make Alaska closer to habitable...
If Alaska had more electoral votes, think about who would have a better chance of getting elected President.