It's pretty disingenuous not to note that the quote is from George HW Bush, not George W Bush, especially when you refer to the latter afterwards without differentiating between the two.
I just can't get over the stupidity of this administration. Bush gives a huge tax cut, most of which goes to very rich people, while Michael Powell wants to do a tax hike on one of the few technologies that might actually fix the economy?
Michael Powell is not part of the administration; he is (nominally, at least) independent, and was appointed by Clinton.
And I've never quite figured out how "not taking as much as we used to" and "giving away money" are the same thing, no matter how many times the Democrats have tried to explain it to me.
The BBC has to be the single most overrated media entity in the English speaking world. Most of us grew out of the anglophile obsession with the BBC sometime during high school.
And I walked into a McDonald's yesterday, and they wouldn't just sell me the pickles and tomatoes separately. They made me buy whole hamburgers to get them! What a gip! Time to call the BBB...
I can guarantee that someone who would contradict the statement that there is "more diversity and competition in the media than at any other time in history" either was born after the advent of cable TV or is suffering from amnesia.
Sure, Benzapp -- there was SO MUCH MORE diversity when television consisted entirely of ABC, NBC, and CBS.
And there's plenty of good stuff (and awful stuff) on TV, no matter what you tell yourself.
Dr. Kalam speaks at least four languages (and I am probably understanting it a fair bit - Tamil, Hindi, English, and yes Urdu - he is a _Muslim_. What does that say about tolerance/diversity?) You think speaking Spanish is hard? I have picked up the language in two months, its so similar to English. Try doing that with any two of the languages I just mentioned above.
Yeah, Spanish is certainly much more similar to English than Urdu is to Hindi. For being such a genius, you're pretty ignorant of the facts of linguistics.
When did I say I believed the "Jessica Lynch was shot" rumors? I never said it was true, or provable, or that I believed it. I just said it didn't originate with the Pentagon.
But the pentagon is not legally prohibited from releasing the raw footage of the incident. Why would they not do this?
The Pentagon likely has plenty of reasons not to release raw footage of its operations -- protecting their knowledge of how these operations are carried out is one of them.
He did - he gave the pentagon ample opportunity to refute the claims which they refused to do.
And as I've said before, he asked questions the Pentagon couldn't answer -- if he asks, "Is it true or not that Pvt. Lynch was wounded?", the Pentagon cannot legally respond.
I don't remeber hearing any allegations of war crimes being committed. Oh, wait - he's muslim, he must be a war criminal.
Aha ha ha ha! The slashbot "Oh wait!" I never get tired of that.
But to address your slightly less infantile prior point -- I didn't raise accusations of war crimes. I said that the Iraqi doctor may have had something to hide which would taint his story. Did he actually? We don't know, and the BBC reporter couldn't be bothered to press him and look for inconsistencies in his story to either prove or disprove it, because the story fit his preconceived "scoop." He wanted a "The Lynch Story Was Faked" headline, not the actual truth either way.
If you think that pentagon never lies, you are deluding yourself. It's common knowledge that the media version of Gulf War I was a practically a complete fabrication. Many american journalists openly admitted to being knowingly misled as the true story later unfolded. If you believe they've suddenly decided to stop media management out of the goodness of their hearts, then I feel sorry for you.
I didn't say the Pentagon never lies, I said they're not lying in this particular instance. If you're so blinded by your belief that you're one of the lone iconoclasts standing up against media manipulation that you're willing to swallow any anti-Pentagon story, then I'll return the favor of feeling sorry for you.
For fuck's sake, no it's not. You know, ignorant zealots like you make it very difficult for the grown-ups who want to responsibly and effectively counter anti-privacy initiatives by making us all look like blabbering tinfoiled-topped idiots.
The Pentagon is LEGALLY PROHIBITED from commenting on injuries to troops.
And didn't any of the original story strike as even remotely questionable? Like the fact that the BBC reporter didn't question the account of the Iraqi doctor responsible for her care? Would the fact that mistreatment of Lynch while a POW under his care would be enough to convict him of a war crime have ANY bearing on his account? No, of course not. But hey, he's not American, so it's not like he could possibly lie.
Not to reply twice, but it's pretty obvious that the BBC "journalist" has a lot of trouble with the facts as well -- despite the fact that the US military refuses to ever comment on Lynch's injuries (as it would be against the Privacy Act to do so), he repeatedly refers to the story that she was shot and stabbed as the "official US account." How can you trust someone so ignorant of the actual situation?
From an interview with the article's author on CNN:
HARRIS: Is it your belief right now based upon your investigation that this rescue of Lynch was in any way a staged event and not real?
KAMPFNER: No. First things first. Credit where it is due. The Americans had a legitimate right in getting Lynch out of the hospital in Nasiriya. They had no way of knowing what her fate was, whether she was being well or badly treated.
Keeping the Jessica Lynch fake-story line in your sig even after the reporter who wrote it admitted he was wrong seems kind of stupid. The kind of thing that makes everyone discount whatever you say in the body of your comments.
There may be bigger *potential* markets out there (China, India), but there is not a bigger current market out there. Currently, the US accounts for a quarter of the world's GDP. If collapsing a quarter of the world's economy, and by extension, all of it, satisfies your smug Eurobrattiness, then feel free to continue hoping for it.
Um, America actually is that fucking important. You can wish for the downfall of America all you like, but realize it would mean worldwide economic catastrophe. There is not a Western economy (and I'm just assuming you live in the West) that could survive "not selling stuff to it."
For Christ's sake, I was being sarcastic. I was mocking the inevitable 300 comments denouncing anyone trying to do any good for the Third World in the technology sphere by saying "But they need food and water first!"
Moderators around here are smoking the cheap crack.
I didn't say we needed to completely deregulate the market and let anyone who wants broadcast as powerfully as they want, I said that the current situation is not a free market. I was simply responding to the original poster who claimed that a Clear Channel near-monopoly would be a failure of the free market.
Slashdot Mirror
Translation: I got caught lying on Slashdot, but it's ok because I was lying about people I don't like.
Yeah, you're pretty much an idiot.
It's pretty disingenuous not to note that the quote is from George HW Bush, not George W Bush, especially when you refer to the latter afterwards without differentiating between the two.
Michael Powell is not part of the administration; he is (nominally, at least) independent, and was appointed by Clinton.
And I've never quite figured out how "not taking as much as we used to" and "giving away money" are the same thing, no matter how many times the Democrats have tried to explain it to me.
The BBC has to be the single most overrated media entity in the English speaking world. Most of us grew out of the anglophile obsession with the BBC sometime during high school.
And I walked into a McDonald's yesterday, and they wouldn't just sell me the pickles and tomatoes separately. They made me buy whole hamburgers to get them! What a gip! Time to call the BBB...
I can guarantee that someone who would contradict the statement that there is "more diversity and competition in the media than at any other time in history" either was born after the advent of cable TV or is suffering from amnesia.
Sure, Benzapp -- there was SO MUCH MORE diversity when television consisted entirely of ABC, NBC, and CBS.
And there's plenty of good stuff (and awful stuff) on TV, no matter what you tell yourself.
Yeah, Spanish is certainly much more similar to English than Urdu is to Hindi. For being such a genius, you're pretty ignorant of the facts of linguistics.
Actually, rumors are factually false until proven otherwise. This isn't a criminal trial here.
When did I say I believed the "Jessica Lynch was shot" rumors? I never said it was true, or provable, or that I believed it. I just said it didn't originate with the Pentagon.
Sheesh, read my posts.
Your sig, though, is factually wrong. Even the author of the BBC story is not saying anymore that the rescue was faked.
4. A rumor among troops reporters were embedded with?
5. A rumor among the journalists themselves?
You leave out an enormous amount of ways stories get started, but as long as your preconceived Pentagon conspiracy angle is in there...
The Pentagon likely has plenty of reasons not to release raw footage of its operations -- protecting their knowledge of how these operations are carried out is one of them.
And as I've said before, he asked questions the Pentagon couldn't answer -- if he asks, "Is it true or not that Pvt. Lynch was wounded?", the Pentagon cannot legally respond.
Aha ha ha ha! The slashbot "Oh wait!" I never get tired of that.
But to address your slightly less infantile prior point -- I didn't raise accusations of war crimes. I said that the Iraqi doctor may have had something to hide which would taint his story. Did he actually? We don't know, and the BBC reporter couldn't be bothered to press him and look for inconsistencies in his story to either prove or disprove it, because the story fit his preconceived "scoop." He wanted a "The Lynch Story Was Faked" headline, not the actual truth either way.
I didn't say the Pentagon never lies, I said they're not lying in this particular instance. If you're so blinded by your belief that you're one of the lone iconoclasts standing up against media manipulation that you're willing to swallow any anti-Pentagon story, then I'll return the favor of feeling sorry for you.
For fuck's sake, no it's not. You know, ignorant zealots like you make it very difficult for the grown-ups who want to responsibly and effectively counter anti-privacy initiatives by making us all look like blabbering tinfoiled-topped idiots.
They didn't. Some media agencies carried that story.
The Pentagon is LEGALLY PROHIBITED from commenting on injuries to troops.
And didn't any of the original story strike as even remotely questionable? Like the fact that the
BBC reporter didn't question the account of the Iraqi doctor responsible for her care? Would the fact that mistreatment of Lynch while a POW under his care would be enough to convict him of a war crime have ANY bearing on his account? No, of course not. But hey, he's not American, so it's not like he could possibly lie.
Not to reply twice, but it's pretty obvious that the BBC "journalist" has a lot of trouble with the facts as well -- despite the fact that the US military refuses to ever comment on Lynch's injuries (as it would be against the Privacy Act to do so), he repeatedly refers to the story that she was shot and stabbed as the "official US account." How can you trust someone so ignorant of the actual situation?
His sig says "The Jessica Lynch story was faked." When asked if he thought the rescue was faked, the author specifically said "no, it wasn't."
Keeping the Jessica Lynch fake-story line in your sig even after the reporter who wrote it admitted he was wrong seems kind of stupid. The kind of thing that makes everyone discount whatever you say in the body of your comments.
There may be bigger *potential* markets out there (China, India), but there is not a bigger current market out there. Currently, the US accounts for a quarter of the world's GDP. If collapsing a quarter of the world's economy, and by extension, all of it, satisfies your smug Eurobrattiness, then feel free to continue hoping for it.
Um, America actually is that fucking important. You can wish for the downfall of America all you like, but realize it would mean worldwide economic catastrophe. There is not a Western economy (and I'm just assuming you live in the West) that could survive "not selling stuff to it."
For Christ's sake, I was being sarcastic. I was mocking the inevitable 300 comments denouncing anyone trying to do any good for the Third World in the technology sphere by saying "But they need food and water first!"
Moderators around here are smoking the cheap crack.
Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING GIVING THEM TECHNOLOGY! THEY NEED FOOD AND SHELTER FIRST!!
Now, I suppose we can continue with a rational discussion.
Your "always" seems to encompass a span of about two decades.
I didn't say we needed to completely deregulate the market and let anyone who wants broadcast as powerfully as they want, I said that the current situation is not a free market. I was simply responding to the original poster who claimed that a Clear Channel near-monopoly would be a failure of the free market.