The US got dragged kicking and screaming into science by WW II. The Cold War sustained that.
Now that this is over, thank $DEITY we can all get rid of this science nonsense and focus on the important things like power, money and religion.
That's okay, because now they've created a phony "war on terror" that can never be won (especially considering how the US war campaign creates more terrorists than it takes out). They even re-declare the "State of Emergency" initially declared on 9/11/2001 every year so the administration can continually exert "emergency powers".
There's no need to prove that a given belief is completely correct. One just needs a method to compare two beliefs/hypotheses and see which one makes better predictions. Thanks science!
Gee, that leaves out every religion I've heard of AND anthropogenic climate change!
The whole U.S. is established on the idea of God and religion.
Completely false hyperbole. Certainly it's true that The American colonies were in large part settled by religious adherents dissatisfied with the overly-liberal doctrine of the country of origins' established religion. So they actually settled here seeking to escape religious persecution.
That is the basis of the established independent government of the US: There will be no established religion here. Enshrined in the Constitution as the first part of the bill of rights. No established religion and total freedom of religion. The very opposite of your initial premise.
What has happened in recent years is a new religion replacing the old ones, and seeking to overthrow the ban on religious establishment by wrapping itself in "science" as a disguise. The funny thing is that the presentation of the Gaiaists' dogma is exactly like the way the old religions were promoted and sold - complete closed loop of argument, and all opposition cast as evil and dangerous.
Oh you mean like having Liv Tyler save the Hobbits, just because she was a semi-famous actress? I never even bothered to watch the last two movies.
Except for when Eowyn killed the Nazgul lord, which is the coolest part of any book ever.
It didn't actually happen like that in the book. Merry had discovered an ancient sword in the barrow-wight's lair (and even completely left out of the movies). It was one of the few weapons that could actually harm the Witch-king, and when Merry stabbed him in the back of the knee with it, it damaged him so badly that anyone could have finished him off.
Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.
Then I would prepare to be upset.
Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation. While you and I may wish to see these tales portrayed on screen, doing so would detract from the pacing of a movie. Pacing and tempo are much more delicate in a movie compared to a novel. I would much rather see a great movie whose story was imperfectly adapted than a perfect translation which would doubtless be all but unwatchable. I argue that the Hobbit will similarly either significantly diverge from the novel or be a supremely awful movie.
Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then. Having Merry the Hobbit kill the 2nd most powerful evil being in the movie by stabbing him in the knee just came out non-nonsensical without the barrow-wight backstory.
Can't wait until some future President (a la Nixon, and then some) declares the Democratic Party to be a terrorist organization.
Yep. It's always "the other guy" people are afraid of having power, but handing it to their own guy is a-okay. According to Rand Paul:
There are laws on the books right now that characterize who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?”
Sounds like it's not "Democrats" on the list these days. Frankly, things are moving so fast, I'm starting to wonder how many elections they're going to actually allow to happen - or to recognize, anyway.
Being sure that if Watergate happened again it would be exposed and the president forced to resign over it.
Something similar has happened, but this time it's more than just political advantage at stake - many people have died. We don't know if the President was involved, but it's clear at this point that the Attorney General Eric Holder has lied and is lying to congress and Issa, and refused to provide Justice Department documents. John Mitchell served 19 months in prison for the exact thing that Holder has done.
I don't know why the media isn't covering this on a daily basis, maybe the executive is so powerful they can get away with these things now. After J. Edgar Hoover's reign over the FBI ended, then the obstruction witnessed during Watergate, a law was passed barring anyone from being FBI Director for more than 10 years. But the administration and the Senate have decided to ignore that, and Robert Mueller remains director for at least 2 more years. So, I'm sorry, I think the time is over that "if Watergate happened again it would be exposed".
Phone use while driving slows down traffic [utah.edu],...
This is the worst one IMHO. It's always someone poking along at 10 or 15 MPH slower than everybody else, in the left lane, backing up traffic, and when I finally manage to get around them and look - there they are on their *#&$&$* cell phone.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because that would be antithetical to the current social paradigm in the US, to wit: You can't hold people personally responsible, you must either blame society, a group or organization, or simply "too much freedom".
That last one is popular, and the NTSB has decided that "too much freedom" is the problem this time. Since there are some people too irresponsible to be trusted with a cell phone and a driver's license, you must punish everyone by imposing restrictions on the entire populace.
The only way to make these kinds of problems go away is to make it illegal and punishable to claim copyright on something that you do not own the copyright for.
It already is punishable, according to the DMCA. It's considered perjury.
Diebold was even prosecuted for perjury for send bogus takedown notices.
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Private sector make more money, but more money does not, nor has it ever, meant 'better' n an absolute sense.
It's a damn good indicator, though. There is a reason poor people accused of crimes end up in prison and rich people more often get off: More money buys better lawyers.
That's not to say all public sector attorneys (not sure what a "public sector corporate lawyer" is, or what you're referring to, there) are worse than all private and corporate attorneys, but that's the general trend. I've seen too many agreements where the vendor got way too good a deal from a state contract, often due to some complicated technicalities that's difficult to spot. Maybe it's just that all of the lawyers in the attorney general's office are just too busy.
I speak from experience, although with a very small sample size. I don't know about universities, but most state agencies can't really hire independent attorneys, they get legal advise from the state attorney general's office. The last IT contract I was involved in was a 4-year, multi-million dollar custom line-of-business application development and implementation effort. After all the negotiations we went through, at the final hour the idiot public sector lawyers agreed to allow the consulting firm to retain all IP ownership rights to the source code we are paying them to develop.
Another part of it is the bidding mechanisms which are supposed to ensure an unbiased picking of vendors, but has the added "bonus" of tending to favor groups that under-represent their cost, and no real mechanism to enforce them to stick to their estimates.
Um, the "real mechanism to enforce them to stick to their estimates" would be the contract. If the wronged party chooses not to seek enforcement of the contract when it's breached, that's their fault.
Then you run into the lopsided bargaining position issue. Public sector lawyers are not as good as Oracle's, and they know nothing about technology.
PeopleSoft (before Oracle bought them) had an even more draconian pricing model. It was based on total gross revenues. They even require specific documentation and audits of your income. This sounds so much like an organized crime racket I'm stunned they got so large doing it.
"Okay, so how much with this great ERP system cost."
I am glad that you are against paying police officers (who often make 80 to 90 K a year in big cities), whose soul purpose is to use tax payer money to finance their lifestyles, while they get paid primarily to put poor people in jail; including black people, drug users, people who protest against corruption and immorality, etc. Pretty much the same with the military; the true crime here and the REAL socialism is that billions of dollars are spent each year to fund the military and their adventures in oil producing countries. I bet you are too ignorant to know that the conservatives in the United States originally backed the Tali-ban in Afghanistan because they thought their religious repression would make for a stable oil producing country for American oil companies. I'm glad to see you are against the Conservative values of greed and corruption, and against forcing peace loving people to pay taxes to the military and the police.
I can't really disagree with your sentiments, there. I thought you were being facetious about the police there at first, but I understand where you're coming from. I do see a need for police, though, and the need to make sure they're compensated for their risky legitimate protection of the citizens. Of course, police are funded and supported locally, as they should be, not militarized and controlled by the remote and unresponsive Federal regime in Washington - the sources of the issues you raised.
I am also glad to hear that you are against corporations enslaving poor people with low wages while the managers and their owners use their financial influence to ensure that worker protections, banking protections, etc are not enacted to help protect the vulnerable from the corrupt people who enclosed public land for their own personal business enterprises, and who enthusiastically pollute the public air and land and force innocent children to breathe in filthy smog that enriches the (leadership) of the Right Wing. When you say you are against slavery, I am glad to here this. Because a person who is against being enslaved is naturally against corporatism, greed, and religion.
Whoa, wait, what? You lost me there. What are you talking about, here? Are you claiming the government doesn't enforce any protection for workers? And what are "banking protections"? I think there is way too much banking protection going on - or is this something not enough protection of people FROM the bad actions of banks (certainly true), or that the banks were protected too much and should have failed instead of being bailed out and running off with so much money stolen from the middle class?
protect the vulnerable from the corrupt people who enclosed public land for their own personal business enterprises
Not sure what this one is about, either. You're talking about corrupt politicians that steal land for their corporate buddies, like the SCOTUS allows to happen in the New London case? That was disgusting. I'm working on helping get a Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia to prevent that kind of government abuse of property from ever happening again here.
who enthusiastically pollute the public air and land and force innocent children to breathe in filthy smog that enriches the (leadership) of the Right Wing.
You really gotta be more specific, here. There have been lots of unconscionable pollution by various actors, most of it happening overseas now, but I'm not sure what enrichment by what leader of what "Right Wing" you're talking about.
When you say you are against slavery, I am glad to here this. Because a person who is against being enslaved is naturally against corporatism, greed, and religion.
I think you mean "hear". Yes, I'm against corporatism, and of course like everyone I'm against greed, but I'm not against any religion that anyone wants to peacefully practice. Freedom o
You fail. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of this bill is a conservative.
According to who? He's a Republican, but there are lots of Republicans that are far from conservative. "Heritage Action" only gives him a 56% conservative rating.
I don't really pay attention to party much anyway. To me, you judge a politician only on whether he is working for more government and corporate power or defending liberty for the people.
...and those who support protecting consumers from predatory behavior.
There's really no such thing anymore. Yes, USDA inspections of meat packing factories was once sorely needed. But there hasn't been a single bit of legislation in the last 50 years termed "consumer protection" that was anything but a rule eliminating some consumer choice.
Nevermind, looks like you're a Randian, with some white, christian persecution complex thrown in. Nothing good's going to come from continuing the discussion.
Cute. Not sure what your racist comment is about, I'm no Randian but have significant libertarian leanings, pagan if religious at all. Somehow I enjoy defending anyone being persecuted. So you're as bad a judge of people as you are discerning of media PR.
Shocking. An organization is providing information on how to give them money.
I think you missed the part about where they calling it - in big, bold type - ADVERTISING. Just like all the other media conglomerates. They even talk about the "ROI" on your marketing dollars. Note that if you're an NPR listener, they are selling YOU to their corporate sponsors.
Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than that, especially since most NPR stories have transcripts.
It's a story from an NPR story on one of their radio broadcasts. If there's a transcript, you find it. Frankly, I've heard lots of stories on NPR that I could never find a transcript for, and can even find broadcasts on their site that have no transcript.
Contributions and membership fees are from individuals.
WRONG! "membership fees" defined by NPR themselves:
NPR is a membership organization. Stations send NPR around $70 million per year in membership fees and dues and directly help NPR raise another $30 million per year by creating audiences for national sponsorships.
1) Provide a breakdown of who provides how much cash.
Unfortunately, NPR is not required to provide that information in their 990 filings, and I don't have the cash to pay for the information request.
That would be doing something too much like real journalism, something many suckers expect for their contributions to NPR, but very rarely actually get.
So far, the only thing you've done is claimed a point.
No, I posted their "advertise with us" marketing page, catering to corporate sponsors just like any other media conglomerate, and I posted the "story" that was basically nothing but an advertisement for a corporate sponsor. There are many other similar examples, but if you're just going to ignore everything, not much point in posting more links, is there?
"obnoxious format" is putting it mildly. But, it tells nothing. They lump "contributions and membership fees" all in one big category, no telling where any of it is coming from. Besides which, that's only for a single affiliate, not for the "national treasure" we were talking about. this one is a little better, and perusing the IRS filings is quite enlightening.
If donors stop donating, public radio goes under. Donors stop donating when programs don't appeal to them. Therefore, public radio has to cater to what the donors want to hear. Especially since no public radio station can survive on ads alone. The donation comes with the string of "if you don't keep providing the content I want, I will stop donating."
That's entirely irrelevant, and, again exactly the same model as the other media outlets. Fox News will not remain on the air if people stop watching. So Fox News is full of honest integrity because they have an audience that watches them? NPR's model only asks for donations because they provide less air time for their sponsored messages. Otherwise - same - same.
Glass houses, first stones, and all that. You're the one who thinks that the group contributing 30% to an organizations bottom line has more pull than the one contributing 60%.
You keep making that claim, but, quite simply, they whatever-percent-you-claim-it's-60 that contributes is only influencing ONE thing: keep running the programming. What goes INTO the programming, they don't have a say in, are never asked, and cannot influence. Instead, that comes from the corporate sponsors, advertisers, benefactors and foundation contributors. It's really simple. Kind of like how there are millions of people voting for representatives in the US congress, AND providing small contributions to campaigns, but somehow the only ones influencing legislation are the 1% with access and BIG contributions.
Wait - so according to you, the only time that money buys advertising is when it comes from a corporation? But that money from any other source is just funneled into their personal propaganda fund?
Why the straw man arguments? My point is that NPR is compromised, and not better than any other mainstream media outlet. You denied that, and suggested I "donate more", which obviously would do no good in improving NPR's integrity.
I wasn't aware that corporations use special money that gives them somehow more influence.
Well whatever they are doing, it's apparent that NPR likes that corporate money and will do whatever a major sponsor tells them to. They even blatantly seek it out. I think I've demonstrated it pretty clearly. Do you still deny it?
Furthermore, you do realize that individuals provide twice as much money as corporations?
Not sure if I believe that. And in any case, it's irrelevant, because that funding comes with no strings, because all those individual donors still get NO influence in the programming, and the NPR producers DO NOT CARE about them, and ONLY listen to what their corporate sponsors want.
So either you are arguing that public radio is the only institution that can escape the basic rules of capitalism, or that there's something special about the money that comes from corporations.
There is something "special" about it. It buys influence in the programming. And advertisements. And even "news segments" that do nothing but sell their products. It's not "escaping rules of capitalism", it's just that one entity with many thousands of dollars can buy whatever programming they want, but lots of people in aggregate just don't have any influence or voice whatsoever, and are left screwed out of the pittance they've donated.
There's certainly no reason for you not to understand that, and there are only two reasons why you would claim ignorance: either you are a shill for NPR, or you are stupid.
This is all pretty thin stuff. The case in 1990 was about a state law restricting the ability to collect unemployment benefits, and Congress quickly passed a law defending the right of Native Americans to use it in their religious practices. And then going back to "prior to 1930" says nothing about the current state of political today. I mean, you're talking about a time in history when women had only been allowed to vote for 10 years, and most blacks in the South were still prevented from voting.
Slashdot Mirror
The US got dragged kicking and screaming into science by WW II. The Cold War sustained that. Now that this is over, thank $DEITY we can all get rid of this science nonsense and focus on the important things like power, money and religion.
That's okay, because now they've created a phony "war on terror" that can never be won (especially considering how the US war campaign creates more terrorists than it takes out). They even re-declare the "State of Emergency" initially declared on 9/11/2001 every year so the administration can continually exert "emergency powers".
There's no need to prove that a given belief is completely correct. One just needs a method to compare two beliefs/hypotheses and see which one makes better predictions. Thanks science!
Gee, that leaves out every religion I've heard of AND anthropogenic climate change!
The whole U.S. is established on the idea of God and religion.
Completely false hyperbole. Certainly it's true that The American colonies were in large part settled by religious adherents dissatisfied with the overly-liberal doctrine of the country of origins' established religion. So they actually settled here seeking to escape religious persecution.
That is the basis of the established independent government of the US: There will be no established religion here. Enshrined in the Constitution as the first part of the bill of rights. No established religion and total freedom of religion. The very opposite of your initial premise.
What has happened in recent years is a new religion replacing the old ones, and seeking to overthrow the ban on religious establishment by wrapping itself in "science" as a disguise. The funny thing is that the presentation of the Gaiaists' dogma is exactly like the way the old religions were promoted and sold - complete closed loop of argument, and all opposition cast as evil and dangerous.
Oh you mean like having Liv Tyler save the Hobbits, just because she was a semi-famous actress? I never even bothered to watch the last two movies.
Except for when Eowyn killed the Nazgul lord, which is the coolest part of any book ever.
It didn't actually happen like that in the book. Merry had discovered an ancient sword in the barrow-wight's lair (and even completely left out of the movies). It was one of the few weapons that could actually harm the Witch-king, and when Merry stabbed him in the back of the knee with it, it damaged him so badly that anyone could have finished him off.
Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.
Then I would prepare to be upset.
Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation. While you and I may wish to see these tales portrayed on screen, doing so would detract from the pacing of a movie. Pacing and tempo are much more delicate in a movie compared to a novel. I would much rather see a great movie whose story was imperfectly adapted than a perfect translation which would doubtless be all but unwatchable. I argue that the Hobbit will similarly either significantly diverge from the novel or be a supremely awful movie.
Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then. Having Merry the Hobbit kill the 2nd most powerful evil being in the movie by stabbing him in the knee just came out non-nonsensical without the barrow-wight backstory.
Can't wait until some future President (a la Nixon, and then some) declares the Democratic Party to be a terrorist organization.
Yep. It's always "the other guy" people are afraid of having power, but handing it to their own guy is a-okay. According to Rand Paul:
Sounds like it's not "Democrats" on the list these days. Frankly, things are moving so fast, I'm starting to wonder how many elections they're going to actually allow to happen - or to recognize, anyway.
Being sure that if Watergate happened again it would be exposed and the president forced to resign over it.
Something similar has happened, but this time it's more than just political advantage at stake - many people have died. We don't know if the President was involved, but it's clear at this point that the Attorney General Eric Holder has lied and is lying to congress and Issa, and refused to provide Justice Department documents. John Mitchell served 19 months in prison for the exact thing that Holder has done.
I don't know why the media isn't covering this on a daily basis, maybe the executive is so powerful they can get away with these things now. After J. Edgar Hoover's reign over the FBI ended, then the obstruction witnessed during Watergate, a law was passed barring anyone from being FBI Director for more than 10 years. But the administration and the Senate have decided to ignore that, and Robert Mueller remains director for at least 2 more years. So, I'm sorry, I think the time is over that "if Watergate happened again it would be exposed".
...like throwing used smoking materials out the window onto my lawn so as not to dirty up their ashtrays.
Dude I can't put nasty ashes and butts in my car ashtray - I keep my cigarette lighter in there!!
Phone use while driving slows down traffic [utah.edu], ...
This is the worst one IMHO. It's always someone poking along at 10 or 15 MPH slower than everybody else, in the left lane, backing up traffic, and when I finally manage to get around them and look - there they are on their *#&$&$* cell phone.
Grrr. SHUT UP and DRIVE!!
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because that would be antithetical to the current social paradigm in the US, to wit: You can't hold people personally responsible, you must either blame society, a group or organization, or simply "too much freedom".
That last one is popular, and the NTSB has decided that "too much freedom" is the problem this time. Since there are some people too irresponsible to be trusted with a cell phone and a driver's license, you must punish everyone by imposing restrictions on the entire populace.
The only way to make these kinds of problems go away is to make it illegal and punishable to claim copyright on something that you do not own the copyright for.
It already is punishable, according to the DMCA. It's considered perjury.
Diebold was even prosecuted for perjury for send bogus takedown notices.
Private sector make more money, but more money does not, nor has it ever, meant 'better' n an absolute sense.
It's a damn good indicator, though. There is a reason poor people accused of crimes end up in prison and rich people more often get off: More money buys better lawyers.
That's not to say all public sector attorneys (not sure what a "public sector corporate lawyer" is, or what you're referring to, there) are worse than all private and corporate attorneys, but that's the general trend. I've seen too many agreements where the vendor got way too good a deal from a state contract, often due to some complicated technicalities that's difficult to spot. Maybe it's just that all of the lawyers in the attorney general's office are just too busy.
I speak from experience, although with a very small sample size. I don't know about universities, but most state agencies can't really hire independent attorneys, they get legal advise from the state attorney general's office. The last IT contract I was involved in was a 4-year, multi-million dollar custom line-of-business application development and implementation effort. After all the negotiations we went through, at the final hour the idiot public sector lawyers agreed to allow the consulting firm to retain all IP ownership rights to the source code we are paying them to develop.
Another part of it is the bidding mechanisms which are supposed to ensure an unbiased picking of vendors, but has the added "bonus" of tending to favor groups that under-represent their cost, and no real mechanism to enforce them to stick to their estimates.
Um, the "real mechanism to enforce them to stick to their estimates" would be the contract. If the wronged party chooses not to seek enforcement of the contract when it's breached, that's their fault.
Then you run into the lopsided bargaining position issue. Public sector lawyers are not as good as Oracle's, and they know nothing about technology.
PeopleSoft (before Oracle bought them) had an even more draconian pricing model. It was based on total gross revenues. They even require specific documentation and audits of your income. This sounds so much like an organized crime racket I'm stunned they got so large doing it.
"Okay, so how much with this great ERP system cost."
"That depends. How much do you make?"
I am glad that you are against paying police officers (who often make 80 to 90 K a year in big cities), whose soul purpose is to use tax payer money to finance their lifestyles, while they get paid primarily to put poor people in jail; including black people, drug users, people who protest against corruption and immorality, etc. Pretty much the same with the military; the true crime here and the REAL socialism is that billions of dollars are spent each year to fund the military and their adventures in oil producing countries. I bet you are too ignorant to know that the conservatives in the United States originally backed the Tali-ban in Afghanistan because they thought their religious repression would make for a stable oil producing country for American oil companies. I'm glad to see you are against the Conservative values of greed and corruption, and against forcing peace loving people to pay taxes to the military and the police.
I can't really disagree with your sentiments, there. I thought you were being facetious about the police there at first, but I understand where you're coming from. I do see a need for police, though, and the need to make sure they're compensated for their risky legitimate protection of the citizens. Of course, police are funded and supported locally, as they should be, not militarized and controlled by the remote and unresponsive Federal regime in Washington - the sources of the issues you raised.
I am also glad to hear that you are against corporations enslaving poor people with low wages while the managers and their owners use their financial influence to ensure that worker protections, banking protections, etc are not enacted to help protect the vulnerable from the corrupt people who enclosed public land for their own personal business enterprises, and who enthusiastically pollute the public air and land and force innocent children to breathe in filthy smog that enriches the (leadership) of the Right Wing. When you say you are against slavery, I am glad to here this. Because a person who is against being enslaved is naturally against corporatism, greed, and religion.
Whoa, wait, what? You lost me there. What are you talking about, here? Are you claiming the government doesn't enforce any protection for workers? And what are "banking protections"? I think there is way too much banking protection going on - or is this something not enough protection of people FROM the bad actions of banks (certainly true), or that the banks were protected too much and should have failed instead of being bailed out and running off with so much money stolen from the middle class?
protect the vulnerable from the corrupt people who enclosed public land for their own personal business enterprises
Not sure what this one is about, either. You're talking about corrupt politicians that steal land for their corporate buddies, like the SCOTUS allows to happen in the New London case? That was disgusting. I'm working on helping get a Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia to prevent that kind of government abuse of property from ever happening again here.
who enthusiastically pollute the public air and land and force innocent children to breathe in filthy smog that enriches the (leadership) of the Right Wing.
You really gotta be more specific, here. There have been lots of unconscionable pollution by various actors, most of it happening overseas now, but I'm not sure what enrichment by what leader of what "Right Wing" you're talking about.
When you say you are against slavery, I am glad to here this. Because a person who is against being enslaved is naturally against corporatism, greed, and religion.
I think you mean "hear". Yes, I'm against corporatism, and of course like everyone I'm against greed, but I'm not against any religion that anyone wants to peacefully practice. Freedom o
You fail. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of this bill is a conservative.
According to who? He's a Republican, but there are lots of Republicans that are far from conservative. "Heritage Action" only gives him a 56% conservative rating.
I don't really pay attention to party much anyway. To me, you judge a politician only on whether he is working for more government and corporate power or defending liberty for the people.
...and those who support protecting consumers from predatory behavior.
There's really no such thing anymore. Yes, USDA inspections of meat packing factories was once sorely needed. But there hasn't been a single bit of legislation in the last 50 years termed "consumer protection" that was anything but a rule eliminating some consumer choice.
Not everyone considers the right to carry lethal weapons so sacred.
But many people know better.
Nevermind, looks like you're a Randian, with some white, christian persecution complex thrown in. Nothing good's going to come from continuing the discussion.
Cute. Not sure what your racist comment is about, I'm no Randian but have significant libertarian leanings, pagan if religious at all. Somehow I enjoy defending anyone being persecuted. So you're as bad a judge of people as you are discerning of media PR.
Shocking. An organization is providing information on how to give them money.
I think you missed the part about where they calling it - in big, bold type - ADVERTISING. Just like all the other media conglomerates. They even talk about the "ROI" on your marketing dollars. Note that if you're an NPR listener, they are selling YOU to their corporate sponsors.
Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than that, especially since most NPR stories have transcripts.
It's a story from an NPR story on one of their radio broadcasts. If there's a transcript, you find it. Frankly, I've heard lots of stories on NPR that I could never find a transcript for, and can even find broadcasts on their site that have no transcript.
Contributions and membership fees are from individuals.
WRONG! "membership fees" defined by NPR themselves:
1) Provide a breakdown of who provides how much cash.
Unfortunately, NPR is not required to provide that information in their 990 filings, and I don't have the cash to pay for the information request.
That would be doing something too much like real journalism, something many suckers expect for their contributions to NPR, but very rarely actually get.
So far, the only thing you've done is claimed a point.
No, I posted their "advertise with us" marketing page, catering to corporate sponsors just like any other media conglomerate, and I posted the "story" that was basically nothing but an advertisement for a corporate sponsor. There are many other similar examples, but if you're just going to ignore everything, not much point in posting more links, is there?
There's no need to believe. http://issuu.com/kqed/docs/kqed_annual_report_2010 [issuu.com] The report is in an obnoxious format, but check near the graph near the end.
"obnoxious format" is putting it mildly. But, it tells nothing. They lump "contributions and membership fees" all in one big category, no telling where any of it is coming from. Besides which, that's only for a single affiliate, not for the "national treasure" we were talking about. this one is a little better, and perusing the IRS filings is quite enlightening.
If donors stop donating, public radio goes under. Donors stop donating when programs don't appeal to them. Therefore, public radio has to cater to what the donors want to hear. Especially since no public radio station can survive on ads alone. The donation comes with the string of "if you don't keep providing the content I want, I will stop donating."
That's entirely irrelevant, and, again exactly the same model as the other media outlets. Fox News will not remain on the air if people stop watching. So Fox News is full of honest integrity because they have an audience that watches them? NPR's model only asks for donations because they provide less air time for their sponsored messages. Otherwise - same - same.
Glass houses, first stones, and all that. You're the one who thinks that the group contributing 30% to an organizations bottom line has more pull than the one contributing 60%.
You keep making that claim, but, quite simply, they whatever-percent-you-claim-it's-60 that contributes is only influencing ONE thing: keep running the programming. What goes INTO the programming, they don't have a say in, are never asked, and cannot influence. Instead, that comes from the corporate sponsors, advertisers, benefactors and foundation contributors. It's really simple. Kind of like how there are millions of people voting for representatives in the US congress, AND providing small contributions to campaigns, but somehow the only ones influencing legislation are the 1% with access and BIG contributions.
Wait - so according to you, the only time that money buys advertising is when it comes from a corporation? But that money from any other source is just funneled into their personal propaganda fund?
Why the straw man arguments? My point is that NPR is compromised, and not better than any other mainstream media outlet. You denied that, and suggested I "donate more", which obviously would do no good in improving NPR's integrity.
I wasn't aware that corporations use special money that gives them somehow more influence.
Well whatever they are doing, it's apparent that NPR likes that corporate money and will do whatever a major sponsor tells them to. They even blatantly seek it out. I think I've demonstrated it pretty clearly. Do you still deny it?
Furthermore, you do realize that individuals provide twice as much money as corporations?
Not sure if I believe that. And in any case, it's irrelevant, because that funding comes with no strings, because all those individual donors still get NO influence in the programming, and the NPR producers DO NOT CARE about them, and ONLY listen to what their corporate sponsors want.
So either you are arguing that public radio is the only institution that can escape the basic rules of capitalism, or that there's something special about the money that comes from corporations.
There is something "special" about it. It buys influence in the programming. And advertisements. And even "news segments" that do nothing but sell their products. It's not "escaping rules of capitalism", it's just that one entity with many thousands of dollars can buy whatever programming they want, but lots of people in aggregate just don't have any influence or voice whatsoever, and are left screwed out of the pittance they've donated.
There's certainly no reason for you not to understand that, and there are only two reasons why you would claim ignorance: either you are a shill for NPR, or you are stupid.
You want NPR to be less compromised? Contribute more. The Public radio stations make it easy to donate whatever you want.
That would be pretty self-defeating, since they'll take my money and simply use it to create programming full of lies and corporate propaganda. I don't have enough money to buy air time like the corporations they are catering to. And I certainly don't have the kind of money to buy advertising presented as news stories like this.
This is all pretty thin stuff. The case in 1990 was about a state law restricting the ability to collect unemployment benefits, and Congress quickly passed a law defending the right of Native Americans to use it in their religious practices. And then going back to "prior to 1930" says nothing about the current state of political today. I mean, you're talking about a time in history when women had only been allowed to vote for 10 years, and most blacks in the South were still prevented from voting.