Yeah I dunno exactly why AA doesn't do that well, either. In NYC it's an easy answer because the station it is on barely makes it outside the city, and there's also a great NPR station there, as well as some other free-form radio, etc.. but as for other markets.. who knows.
I don't think it's necessarily a question of demographics, although that may play into it. Of course any discussion like this will include too many generalizations, but that's the nature of the beast.. in general I think that people who are libs or lean-left don't like to have their opinions told to them by an authority. Conservatives, again in general, are big on authority figures (glorification of Reagan, Bush, the military, etc).. liberals, not so much.. but I dunno. I'm not out to tar conservatives (in this post, at least), so I don't mean to say that cons are people who can't think for themselves. Maybe they're comforted by having their opinions validated by people on tv/radio? But at the same time, I know I am comforted by this from time to time.
Newspapers, even ones that are regared as 'liberal', tend to present both sides of the debate and leave the opinion up to the reader.. again, I dunno. I tend to think papers are used by both sides.
FWIW, it's said that conservative groups buy up gigantic lots of those Coulter, etc., books which is why they have such high sales numbers.
Honestly, I'm not even a journalist and it seems completely obvious to me.
The fact that you're not a journalist is probably why you jump to FOIA first.
FOIA is SLOW, SLOW, SLOW. Agencies use every excuse to delay your requests, force you to file lawsuits, etc. etc. Just now the AP got a list of Gitmo detainees released. They started that process 4 years ago! FOUR YEARS. In short: FOIA costs time and money, both of which Wonkette does not have.
Second, there isn't some universal 'block list' for military internet. There are a variety of access methods, networks, branches, etc., all of which could have different access lists. Just by reading the posts on this thread it's shown that this blocking is not uniform. It's not like Rummy is sitting there reading the Internet saying 'block, keep.. keep, keep, block' and tabulating them in a nice little list.
This is the whole reason the FOIA process exists: to give transparency to the operation of the federal government.
That's why FOIA existed under Clinton, maybe (and I mean maybe. It's not like Clinton was a saint). Under Bush, FOIA has become a joke. Transparency? HA! Cheney energy meetings ring a bell? White House Iraq Group mean anything? The only thing that's been transparent was Alito's letter to James Dobson.
AA is trying to ultimately turn a profit. However as a start-up network with little coverage outside of major cities, it is in their interest to stream for free to try and gain listeners. Rush, on the other hand, is carried nationwide, and does not need to waste money streaming (note: iirc, a Rush stream is available for a fee).
It's introduced by a GOPist in a Democratic majority legislature. It's not going to pass the Assembly, let alone the Senate, so we don't have to worry about the courts.
No.. it's wacky. IIRC, EZ-Pass fines are not proper traffic fines, because they're issued by the private agency that runs EZ-Pass. If they wanted to play hardball, they would just turn it over to a collection agency and suspend your account (if you had one, obviously you didn't).
Okay so the fact that there's a Latino interest show mean there is bias because Latinos tend to vote D? That is the funniest thing I've heard all day. By that logic, all of the cable news stations are biased because they have financial affairs shows and wall-street types tend to vote R.
Wake up and envision a sitaution where NPR was conservative and being supported by your tax dollars.
The funny thing is that there are many liberals who feel that NPR is too conservative. Or rather, too corporatist, due to the fact that they've generally given up government money and are now reliant on corporate grants (aka sponsors).
When both sides call a source biased, that's a good indication that they're about as middle-of-the-road as you can get.
There are people out there who seriously think Fox News is the epitome of journalism and that any other source (except maybe the WSJ and Wash. Times) is hopelessly biased. No, I'm not kidding.
I obviously didn't equate not paying for cable with not paying taxes. And you don't have to stoop to panhandling to not pay federal taxes. Plus you do realize that the small amount of federal dollars that NPR gets is a drop in the bucket, right? Cut that funding and your tax bill will not change.. sorry to burst your bubble.
Bill Moyers? You're still on that witch hunt? And your theory would then be that NPR was a raging pit of socialism during the 90s?
Actually, NPR has to compete for their federal money. And that money only makes up 1-2% of their budget, to boot. Plus, they certainly do have to compete for market share, and listener dollars, since pledges (through local affiliates) make up a good part of the budget.
Couldn't find any info on an NPR hiring scandal (unless you mean the recent Bush CPB scandal?) Care to provide a link? Or is this a 20-year old canard that you are still holding onto like Chappaquiddick? Also couldn't find anything on a funding scandal so a source there would be helpful as well.
I don't believe Fox is publicly owned.. or did you mean Fox as the 'government-controlled' media source?
Very little tax money goes to NPR anymore (1-2% of funding).. and the money that does is through competitive grants, meaning that they are in some sense competing for the money. (Note: NPR != NPR affiliate stations)
And as the sibling said, if you think NPR is leftist, your 'left-right' spectrum is way out of whack.
While I personally don't get cable anymore, anyone who does pays for Fox News, whether they like it or not. The only way to not pay for Fox News is to not have cable or satellite, which is a minority of the US.
Reactor != plant. While you could probably keep some elements of the plant (turbines, power distribution, containment buildings, etc.), it's very unlikely that you'd be able to reuse any parts of the reactor.
I've never, and I do mean NEVER, met anyone online or off who liked Outlook
Now you have. Enterprise-wide scheduling and contacts are a godsend when you're spread out across 16 regional offices. Try that with paper and pencil you fool. Spam protection is implemented at the server level. Hint: Outlook is not a personal mail client. Integrated webmail is quite nice too.. same interface at the desktop and on the road.
*sigh* We go through this with every NYT article. The standard journalistic practice is to introduce a Statesman with their title, and then refer to them by Mr. for the remainder of the article. The reason is that "Mr." takes up fewer column inches than "President". It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. I'd like to point out that the Washington Times does the same exact thing.
I dunno if the GSP issue is really a good example. While the ultimate profits will go to a Russian company, it's important to note that you don't make much money selling gasoline to end-users, and they are paying the State for the right to sell gasoline on the GSP. Plus there's a whole host of middlemen where the State takes another cut (delivery, distribution stations, etc.) I'd imagine Lukoil made this deal to increase their brand, not to (directly) make money.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop using car analogies. Thanks.
Yeah I dunno exactly why AA doesn't do that well, either. In NYC it's an easy answer because the station it is on barely makes it outside the city, and there's also a great NPR station there, as well as some other free-form radio, etc.. but as for other markets.. who knows.
I don't think it's necessarily a question of demographics, although that may play into it. Of course any discussion like this will include too many generalizations, but that's the nature of the beast.. in general I think that people who are libs or lean-left don't like to have their opinions told to them by an authority. Conservatives, again in general, are big on authority figures (glorification of Reagan, Bush, the military, etc).. liberals, not so much.. but I dunno. I'm not out to tar conservatives (in this post, at least), so I don't mean to say that cons are people who can't think for themselves. Maybe they're comforted by having their opinions validated by people on tv/radio? But at the same time, I know I am comforted by this from time to time.
Newspapers, even ones that are regared as 'liberal', tend to present both sides of the debate and leave the opinion up to the reader.. again, I dunno. I tend to think papers are used by both sides.
FWIW, it's said that conservative groups buy up gigantic lots of those Coulter, etc., books which is why they have such high sales numbers.
Honestly, I'm not even a journalist and it seems completely obvious to me.
The fact that you're not a journalist is probably why you jump to FOIA first.
FOIA is SLOW, SLOW, SLOW. Agencies use every excuse to delay your requests, force you to file lawsuits, etc. etc. Just now the AP got a list of Gitmo detainees released. They started that process 4 years ago! FOUR YEARS. In short: FOIA costs time and money, both of which Wonkette does not have.
Second, there isn't some universal 'block list' for military internet. There are a variety of access methods, networks, branches, etc., all of which could have different access lists. Just by reading the posts on this thread it's shown that this blocking is not uniform. It's not like Rummy is sitting there reading the Internet saying 'block, keep.. keep, keep, block' and tabulating them in a nice little list.
This is the whole reason the FOIA process exists: to give transparency to the operation of the federal government.
That's why FOIA existed under Clinton, maybe (and I mean maybe. It's not like Clinton was a saint). Under Bush, FOIA has become a joke. Transparency? HA! Cheney energy meetings ring a bell? White House Iraq Group mean anything? The only thing that's been transparent was Alito's letter to James Dobson.
So by being in theater they have figured out that Saddam was really behind 9/11? And I guess its the liberal media that's suppressing this story.
AA is trying to ultimately turn a profit. However as a start-up network with little coverage outside of major cities, it is in their interest to stream for free to try and gain listeners. Rush, on the other hand, is carried nationwide, and does not need to waste money streaming (note: iirc, a Rush stream is available for a fee).
Actually if you deposit exactly $9999.99, you'll probably get flagged. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.
Right on. And for many people, their email is accessible from anywhere through OWA.
The NJ Legislature is well aware of the 14th Amendment. You, apparently, are not.
Furthermore, free speech is in the NJ Constitution, at Article 1, Section 6.
Dude, you're tarring all "living documentists" with the revisionist 2nd amendment brush. Not everyone who thinks the document evolves buys into that.
Originalists have the right idea? You mean those originalists on the court that consistently ignore the 9th Amendment that you're so proud of?
It's introduced by a GOPist in a Democratic majority legislature. It's not going to pass the Assembly, let alone the Senate, so we don't have to worry about the courts.
No.. it's wacky. IIRC, EZ-Pass fines are not proper traffic fines, because they're issued by the private agency that runs EZ-Pass. If they wanted to play hardball, they would just turn it over to a collection agency and suspend your account (if you had one, obviously you didn't).
If you wrote a check ~$15k, it got flagged and reported when they cashed that check. Anything over $10k must be reported.
Okay so the fact that there's a Latino interest show mean there is bias because Latinos tend to vote D? That is the funniest thing I've heard all day. By that logic, all of the cable news stations are biased because they have financial affairs shows and wall-street types tend to vote R.
The reason partisan journalists are bias is because they think all facts point towards their viewpoint as "truth."
Case in point.
Wake up and envision a sitaution where NPR was conservative and being supported by your tax dollars.
The funny thing is that there are many liberals who feel that NPR is too conservative. Or rather, too corporatist, due to the fact that they've generally given up government money and are now reliant on corporate grants (aka sponsors).
When both sides call a source biased, that's a good indication that they're about as middle-of-the-road as you can get.
There are people out there who seriously think Fox News is the epitome of journalism and that any other source (except maybe the WSJ and Wash. Times) is hopelessly biased. No, I'm not kidding.
I obviously didn't equate not paying for cable with not paying taxes. And you don't have to stoop to panhandling to not pay federal taxes. Plus you do realize that the small amount of federal dollars that NPR gets is a drop in the bucket, right? Cut that funding and your tax bill will not change.. sorry to burst your bubble.
Bill Moyers? You're still on that witch hunt? And your theory would then be that NPR was a raging pit of socialism during the 90s?
Actually, NPR has to compete for their federal money. And that money only makes up 1-2% of their budget, to boot. Plus, they certainly do have to compete for market share, and listener dollars, since pledges (through local affiliates) make up a good part of the budget.
Couldn't find any info on an NPR hiring scandal (unless you mean the recent Bush CPB scandal?) Care to provide a link? Or is this a 20-year old canard that you are still holding onto like Chappaquiddick? Also couldn't find anything on a funding scandal so a source there would be helpful as well.
I don't believe Fox is publicly owned.. or did you mean Fox as the 'government-controlled' media source?
Very little tax money goes to NPR anymore (1-2% of funding).. and the money that does is through competitive grants, meaning that they are in some sense competing for the money. (Note: NPR != NPR affiliate stations)
And as the sibling said, if you think NPR is leftist, your 'left-right' spectrum is way out of whack.
While I personally don't get cable anymore, anyone who does pays for Fox News, whether they like it or not. The only way to not pay for Fox News is to not have cable or satellite, which is a minority of the US.
Reactor != plant. While you could probably keep some elements of the plant (turbines, power distribution, containment buildings, etc.), it's very unlikely that you'd be able to reuse any parts of the reactor.
NPR may not be the best source, but to compare it to Fox News is an insult and simply wrong.
I've never, and I do mean NEVER, met anyone online or off who liked Outlook
Now you have. Enterprise-wide scheduling and contacts are a godsend when you're spread out across 16 regional offices. Try that with paper and pencil you fool. Spam protection is implemented at the server level. Hint: Outlook is not a personal mail client. Integrated webmail is quite nice too.. same interface at the desktop and on the road.
*sigh* We go through this with every NYT article. The standard journalistic practice is to introduce a Statesman with their title, and then refer to them by Mr. for the remainder of the article. The reason is that "Mr." takes up fewer column inches than "President". It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. I'd like to point out that the Washington Times does the same exact thing.
I dunno if the GSP issue is really a good example. While the ultimate profits will go to a Russian company, it's important to note that you don't make much money selling gasoline to end-users, and they are paying the State for the right to sell gasoline on the GSP. Plus there's a whole host of middlemen where the State takes another cut (delivery, distribution stations, etc.) I'd imagine Lukoil made this deal to increase their brand, not to (directly) make money.
Check again.