Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI. Which he did. It's very simple, if you paid one iota of attention to the trial, or the events that led up to it.
A) He's not innocent, he was found guilty in a court of law by his peers. And if you followed the trial, it was VERY OBVIOUS that Libby did, in fact, spill his guts to anyone who would listen that Valerie Plame had sent her husband on a "fact-finding mission to Niger" in an effort to get them to reprint the same (with the obvious insinuation that there was an agenda to the trip.)
AND THEN PROCEEDED TO LIE ABOUT IT TO THE FBI.
That was the crime committed. Lying to the government is a felony. That's why Bush is keeping the CONVICTION on record. Libby was not innocent.
And B) He was found guilty in a court of law. That is why he "needs to go to jail." And yes, I can easily tell you that Libby deserved to go to jail for what he did. If it had been me, I'd be in jail. What makes him so special?
The problem here is the obvious conflict of interest in that the person being commuted (not pardoned) committed a crime against national security while an employee of the White House.
A little different than drug dealers. But do go on with the hand waving if it makes you feel better.
1) Only print 50,000 copies of an album. 2) Distribute music dirt cheap (half price?) on Net in advance of printing. 3) Auction off 50,000 copies.
They should go ahead and turn all physical copies into de facto collector's items anyway. If they could get 5-10 times value for a record, that'd turn into a gold album in value right there. Every online sale just becomes gravy.
At least it's a sustainable model - there'll always be 50,000 fans who want to actually own the original CD of this or that popular artist.
On a similar note, I haven't noticed a duplicate article in forever. I don't know if you guys just use the tagging system to pick 'em out quicker, or if you're being more diligent about checking for dupes, but great job, guys.
Actually, recording of traffic stops is mandated by most departments at a statewide level (The Texas DPS, for example.) And there won't be any change to that, since the blowback would be tremendous.
So always let local control be able to disable remote control. If the pilots can still fly and someone tries to remotely hijack the plane, they can just kill the receiver on the plane (no more remote control) and fly manually.
And of course report the attempt.
And in the unlikely event that both pilots die, remote control is activated, and then it's hijacked, have an emergency local override for the chief flight attendant that puts the plane on local autopilot (and circling) until the hijack is over.
There's always a contingency plan, don't act so smug in pronouncing an idea invalid just because you have a hack.
It means if you invent a new automated welder, which relies on computer input to produce its output (but also does the actual welding), then this program in tandem with the welder would be considered a patentable device.
It basically means that just because something uses a computer program doesn't mean it's *not* patentable. It's something you have to think about for a second, but it makes sense. It lets people patent things like ATMs, printers, and electronic parking meters.
Uh, we *do* have room for LPFM. Look up "spectrum efficiency", or better yet, Read this article (PDF!)
The idea of a crowded dial is an artificial and archaic one. There's no reason we can't have thousands more low-power FM stations than we currently do. And NPR did work hard to kill this. My university's radio station lost a chance at an LPFM license due to this, so yes, I am going to hold it against them.
On the other hand, CRB is a fucking joke and I hope every member on the panel gets herpes.
I think that, moreso than a "right", that it's not fair (in the normative sense) that - due to digitalization and the ubiquity of a digital market - a company who produces a digital good must either:
a) sell it to everybody at the lowest allowable level based on the cheapest market (so an album is $3 because that's all the people in Fooistan can afford), or b) sell it to everybody at $18, thereby eliminating Fooistanians from buying the album.
Note the numbers here are not important. The important thing is that in one market, there can only be one price, but our current world economy has not matched up prices in Iceland with prices in Pakistan with prices in Taiwan with prices in the US etc etc.
An instantaneous price equalization is going to cause a major loss in revenue for the producers of goods - and you can bitch about the RIAA all you want, but lots of other people produce digital goods, too - either by price or by volume. Less revenue means less incentive to provide digital goods, leading to a reduction of produced goods in the market.
That's just Econ 101, though. The single price point of the digital market simply does not mesh with the various world economies. Of course companies don't have an inherent "right" to sell a good at a certain price everywhere or anywhere, but without segmentation, problems will inevitably arise.
That's a nonsequitur, though. People can like multiple bands, and to different degrees, and often times people must make mutually exclusive decisions on their music purchases based entirely on their amount of disposable income.
Say you've got $15 in your hot hands. You like Radiohead. You like The White Stripes. The Radiohead CD is "DRM-free; copy it as much as you like!" The White Stripes CD is "DRM-laden; don't copy that floppy!" You can only get one. What do you choose?
The explanations for why this scenario does not exist in our current free-market economy goes a long way in explaining why all of the members of the RIAA are failing at the music distribution business in equal amounts. They simply do not have the willpower or the gutcheck to actually compete with one another for YOUR dollars.
What really strikes me as amusing about this whole conversation is that the members of the RIAA and the industry at large are no longer even pretending like there is any actual competition going on at the music distribution level.
And even better, everyone here in this discussion basically assumes that the industry is acting as one singular beast. They say things like "Well, when DRM is removed, blah blah blah..." as if all of the companies will, you know, COLLUDE to just end DRM one day and that'll be that.
The sad part is that, of course, all of these posts are right. The industry no longer acts as a bunch of competing units. They are essentially acting as a philosophical (if not legally binding) conglomerate on all of the ideas about music distribution. That's just sickening.
Why can't one company take that risk now? Why not, you know, offer a *COMPETING* business model of DRM-free music at the upper levels? Of course there are a number of independent companies who do just that, but why can't EMI, for example, just dump DRM? It's because they're all in bed together.
I think we should resist at all times the premise that the RIAA is just some mythical octopus, a single unit with many arms. These types of industry-wide assurances and reclamations are damaging to the whole premise of business as it is. The fact that none of them are even attempting to compete on these terms is just proof that we have already let them cement their status as a de facto monopoly. To not even fight them on that front is disheartening.
To music executives: Your industry is in crisis. Take a fucking risk!
Your analogy does not instantly make that information useless. The statistic he provides is situational, not universal.
To extend your analogy back in the proper direction: If I were a policeman and got called to a scene in which a rape had just occurred, I could pretty safely begin searching for a male suspect.
And if a cybercrime / IT attack occurred within my building, I'd head straight to IR to look for culprits.
Conflating situational statistics with universal truths is a dangerous thing; unfortunately, you're the perpetrator, not the article.
There are a lot of reasons music is much better at judging than movies:
1) Music comes in much smaller and more discrete bites, and therefore more can be judged faster. 2) Music is easier to say "Yes" or "No" to. Most movies fall in grey areas, where you didn't like it, "but it had redeeming values" (or, corollary: it "wasn't perfect but it was still really good"). In short, people don't qualify their music tastes as much as their movie tastes. 3) Music, because it is generally easier to create, as a whole has a much larger spectrum. So niches are easier to find (and accentuate.) Again, more music means more niches. 4) And finally, music (again, because it's easier to create and has more niches) is more divided sociologically than movies are. When someone says, "I like country & western and I can't stand rap", they are making as much a statement about their sociological identity as they are about their music tastes. Someone who says "I like comedies, but I can't stand thrillers" isn't making the same kind of statement. And more to the point, there's nothing sociological that precludes someone from enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean or Superman Returns. For music, that's a lot less true.
In short, cinema as a whole must cater to drawing in as many fans as possible. Music simply doesn't need to cater to the whole, because the niche in and of itself can sustain music. Movies are "for the masses"; but if you don't like one thing of music, you can just try another.
Actually, Jackson himself claims he isn't being paid what he's worth, and he's been banned from New Line Cinema as a result.
And actually, while the term "contraction" is rather load, there is a lot of evidence to date suggesting that the many vanity studios under the Big 5 see much better profit margins than their big brethren because they shoot cheap, hire cheap, and market cheap. So they turn a lot of $15 million movies into $70 million returns, whereas Superman Returns, even with its reported $600 million worldwide take, has about the same return. Oh yeah, and you can shoot about 10 $15mil movies in the time it takes to make 1 Superman.
So really, all the complaining about "overpaid" actors and what not is unjustified, because there are plenty (and I mean plenty) of movies being shot for $20 million or less that'll get widescreen release.
I realize that picking on Hollywood fare is the ultimate tempation of low-hanging fruit, but as a counterexample, if you saw just one new movie every week in 2006, you could've seen:
The Departed The Good Shepherd Idiocracy Children of Men The Good German Letters from Iwo Jima Little Miss Sunshine Thank You For Smoking When The Levees Broke Casino Royale Wordplay An Inconvenient Truth The War Tapes Borat Half Nelson Brick The Last King of Scotland Requiem The Devil and Daniel Johnston Inside Man United 93 The Descent Slither Clerks 2 The Fountain The Illusionist The Prestige Stranger than Fiction Marie Antoinette Wicked Little Things V For Vendetta Cars A Scanner Darkly Fast Food Nation Notes on a Scandal Friends With Money Who Killed The Electric Car? Catch a Fire Hollywoodland Blood Diamond Apocalypto The Road To Guantanamo This Film Is Not Yet Rated The Painted Veil Down in the Valley Lucky Number Slevin 10 Items or Less Fur The Breakup Monster House Scoop Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny
So let's see: Scorsese, Eastwood, Woody Allen, Sofia Coppola, Andres Cuaron, Chris Nolan, Aranofsky, Mike Judge, Steven Soderbergh, 2 Spike Lees, 2 Richard Linklaters, Kevin Smith, Pixar, James Bond, some of the best documentaries ever, great performances by Jack Nicholson, Cate Blanchett, Mark Wahlberg, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Robert Downey Jr., Nicole Kidman, Will Ferrell, Judi Dench, Robert DeNiro, Steve Carell, Adrien Brody, Kate Winslet, Forest Whitaker, Clive Owen, Aaron Eckhart, Edward Norton, Hugh Jackman, Ryan Gosling, and in short, one of the most original years Hollywood has had in years.
And just outside of Hollywood you can of course find Pan's Labyrinth, Venus, The History Boys, The Queen, Volver, Babel - all with Hollywood stars and Hollywood money involved, too.
Not every one of those movies might be your cup of tea, but to suggest that Hollywood doesn't provide *any* entertainment is disingenuous at best, and outright self-denial otherwise.
The chief reason for this, though, is the lack of clear requirements on the initital project manager / architect's part, though.
When you're building a bridge, there's a base requirement: something can cross it. Now what can cross it, how fast, structural integrity, etc, all play a factor in the specifics, but at the end of the day, either something can cross the bridge (safely / quickly / profitably) or it cannot.
If you were told to write a program to add two numbers together, and that was all, you'd have a pretty easy time rejecting "hacky" options, too - because you know all of the requirements.
But most of the time you don't, or you misunderstand them, or (in the classic case) you offer up something and the project suddenly takes a dramatic turn because you did one little neat thing in it and they want the whole system programmed around that tiny widget (at the expense of all others).
Comparing software to a bridge is useless. A bridge is like one specific program - a calculator, or a no-frills text editor. Building software is more like urban planning. Now go ask engineers how many times they've screwed the pooch on that one.
No that argument does not suggset creationism should be taught in schools. Read the quote again, and ponder the meaning of the word "interesting" in Matt Groening's worldview.
According to this article, it was put on YouTube and floated to a WaPo reporter before it ever went to the mainstream TV stations. So, no it wasn't shared "after the fact" on the web - this by admission of the Webb staffers themselves.
So, yes, more people saw it on CNN than on the 'Net, but the free distribution of the Internet (and the resulting steam it got from there) is what got it larger media attention.
If there is a God, and he has been around since the beginning of creation, why do you think you are allowed to define was he does and does not care about?
This isn't a troll, this is actually a serious (and much-debated) critique to your argument. Thomas Aquinas definitively believed that the Christian God was immutable - that is, he definitely was either for or against slavery, definitely for or against homosexuality, definitely for or against coveting your neighbor's wife.
So if two people stood up, and one said, "I believe God does care that you call him by the correct name" and one said, "I believe God does not care that you call him by the correct name", then only one of these people was right.
Now here's the interestint thing: if you reject Aquinas's notion - that is, you think both people are right, that we can manifest our own God for our own purposes - then you must reject the existence of God, because at that point there can be no such thing as an eternal God because our own God dies with us.
So in order to believe in God, you must believe that God has always existed AND that he is immutable. So then the question merely becomes "who has the right idea about God?" And while that question is of course unanswerable, it is very easy for me to say that your idea of God and the Christian idea of God are incompatible.
Slashdot Mirror
Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI. Which he did. It's very simple, if you paid one iota of attention to the trial, or the events that led up to it.
A) He's not innocent, he was found guilty in a court of law by his peers. And if you followed the trial, it was VERY OBVIOUS that Libby did, in fact, spill his guts to anyone who would listen that Valerie Plame had sent her husband on a "fact-finding mission to Niger" in an effort to get them to reprint the same (with the obvious insinuation that there was an agenda to the trip.) AND THEN PROCEEDED TO LIE ABOUT IT TO THE FBI. That was the crime committed. Lying to the government is a felony. That's why Bush is keeping the CONVICTION on record. Libby was not innocent. And B) He was found guilty in a court of law. That is why he "needs to go to jail." And yes, I can easily tell you that Libby deserved to go to jail for what he did. If it had been me, I'd be in jail. What makes him so special?
The problem here is the obvious conflict of interest in that the person being commuted (not pardoned) committed a crime against national security while an employee of the White House.
A little different than drug dealers. But do go on with the hand waving if it makes you feel better.
New RIAA Business Model:
1) Only print 50,000 copies of an album.
2) Distribute music dirt cheap (half price?) on Net in advance of printing.
3) Auction off 50,000 copies.
They should go ahead and turn all physical copies into de facto collector's items anyway. If they could get 5-10 times value for a record, that'd turn into a gold album in value right there. Every online sale just becomes gravy.
At least it's a sustainable model - there'll always be 50,000 fans who want to actually own the original CD of this or that popular artist.
On a similar note, I haven't noticed a duplicate article in forever. I don't know if you guys just use the tagging system to pick 'em out quicker, or if you're being more diligent about checking for dupes, but great job, guys.
Actually, recording of traffic stops is mandated by most departments at a statewide level (The Texas DPS, for example.) And there won't be any change to that, since the blowback would be tremendous.
Tim Griffin, Michael Elston, Paul McNulty, Monica Goodling
Sara Taylor, Bradley Schlozman, Steve Biskupic, Alberto Gonzalez, David Safavian, Lurita Doan, Ken Tomlinson
Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Conrad Burns, Ted Stevens, Kyle Foggo, Duke Cunningham, Brent Wilkes, Mitchell Wade, Curt Weldon, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Tobin
Scooter Libby, Manuel Miranda, Darleen Dryun, Thomas Scully, Chuck Mcgee, Pete Domenici
Porter Goss, Brant Bassett, Virgil Goode, Katherine Harris, Jerry Lewis, Ed Buckham, Steven Griles, Mark Foley, Paul Wolfowitz, Ken Lay, Conrad Black, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Roger Stilwell, Tony Rudy, Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, William Heaton, Adam Kidan, Neil Volz,
Considering that they started a war over corporation-drafted laws, I'd guess they'd be agin it.
So always let local control be able to disable remote control. If the pilots can still fly and someone tries to remotely hijack the plane, they can just kill the receiver on the plane (no more remote control) and fly manually.
And of course report the attempt.
And in the unlikely event that both pilots die, remote control is activated, and then it's hijacked, have an emergency local override for the chief flight attendant that puts the plane on local autopilot (and circling) until the hijack is over.
There's always a contingency plan, don't act so smug in pronouncing an idea invalid just because you have a hack.
It means if you invent a new automated welder, which relies on computer input to produce its output (but also does the actual welding), then this program in tandem with the welder would be considered a patentable device.
It basically means that just because something uses a computer program doesn't mean it's *not* patentable. It's something you have to think about for a second, but it makes sense. It lets people patent things like ATMs, printers, and electronic parking meters.
Prototype has an addClassName function, so you can also just do
$$('a').addClassName('test');
$$('a').show();
I don't think addClassName returns the element list, but I don't have an environment to test it in handy.
Get it? Pink = gay, orange = fla
I think you knew this was going to go there.
Uh, we *do* have room for LPFM. Look up "spectrum efficiency", or better yet, Read this article (PDF!)
The idea of a crowded dial is an artificial and archaic one. There's no reason we can't have thousands more low-power FM stations than we currently do. And NPR did work hard to kill this. My university's radio station lost a chance at an LPFM license due to this, so yes, I am going to hold it against them.
On the other hand, CRB is a fucking joke and I hope every member on the panel gets herpes.
I think that, moreso than a "right", that it's not fair (in the normative sense) that - due to digitalization and the ubiquity of a digital market - a company who produces a digital good must either:
a) sell it to everybody at the lowest allowable level based on the cheapest market (so an album is $3 because that's all the people in Fooistan can afford), or
b) sell it to everybody at $18, thereby eliminating Fooistanians from buying the album.
Note the numbers here are not important. The important thing is that in one market, there can only be one price, but our current world economy has not matched up prices in Iceland with prices in Pakistan with prices in Taiwan with prices in the US etc etc.
An instantaneous price equalization is going to cause a major loss in revenue for the producers of goods - and you can bitch about the RIAA all you want, but lots of other people produce digital goods, too - either by price or by volume. Less revenue means less incentive to provide digital goods, leading to a reduction of produced goods in the market.
That's just Econ 101, though. The single price point of the digital market simply does not mesh with the various world economies. Of course companies don't have an inherent "right" to sell a good at a certain price everywhere or anywhere, but without segmentation, problems will inevitably arise.
The standard deviation of IQ is 15, but otherwise your ranges are generally correct.
That's a nonsequitur, though. People can like multiple bands, and to different degrees, and often times people must make mutually exclusive decisions on their music purchases based entirely on their amount of disposable income.
Say you've got $15 in your hot hands. You like Radiohead. You like The White Stripes. The Radiohead CD is "DRM-free; copy it as much as you like!" The White Stripes CD is "DRM-laden; don't copy that floppy!" You can only get one. What do you choose?
The explanations for why this scenario does not exist in our current free-market economy goes a long way in explaining why all of the members of the RIAA are failing at the music distribution business in equal amounts. They simply do not have the willpower or the gutcheck to actually compete with one another for YOUR dollars.
What really strikes me as amusing about this whole conversation is that the members of the RIAA and the industry at large are no longer even pretending like there is any actual competition going on at the music distribution level.
And even better, everyone here in this discussion basically assumes that the industry is acting as one singular beast. They say things like "Well, when DRM is removed, blah blah blah..." as if all of the companies will, you know, COLLUDE to just end DRM one day and that'll be that.
The sad part is that, of course, all of these posts are right. The industry no longer acts as a bunch of competing units. They are essentially acting as a philosophical (if not legally binding) conglomerate on all of the ideas about music distribution. That's just sickening.
Why can't one company take that risk now? Why not, you know, offer a *COMPETING* business model of DRM-free music at the upper levels? Of course there are a number of independent companies who do just that, but why can't EMI, for example, just dump DRM? It's because they're all in bed together.
I think we should resist at all times the premise that the RIAA is just some mythical octopus, a single unit with many arms. These types of industry-wide assurances and reclamations are damaging to the whole premise of business as it is. The fact that none of them are even attempting to compete on these terms is just proof that we have already let them cement their status as a de facto monopoly. To not even fight them on that front is disheartening.
To music executives: Your industry is in crisis. Take a fucking risk!
Your analogy does not instantly make that information useless. The statistic he provides is situational, not universal.
To extend your analogy back in the proper direction: If I were a policeman and got called to a scene in which a rape had just occurred, I could pretty safely begin searching for a male suspect.
And if a cybercrime / IT attack occurred within my building, I'd head straight to IR to look for culprits.
Conflating situational statistics with universal truths is a dangerous thing; unfortunately, you're the perpetrator, not the article.
There are a lot of reasons music is much better at judging than movies:
1) Music comes in much smaller and more discrete bites, and therefore more can be judged faster.
2) Music is easier to say "Yes" or "No" to. Most movies fall in grey areas, where you didn't like it, "but it had redeeming values" (or, corollary: it "wasn't perfect but it was still really good"). In short, people don't qualify their music tastes as much as their movie tastes.
3) Music, because it is generally easier to create, as a whole has a much larger spectrum. So niches are easier to find (and accentuate.) Again, more music means more niches.
4) And finally, music (again, because it's easier to create and has more niches) is more divided sociologically than movies are. When someone says, "I like country & western and I can't stand rap", they are making as much a statement about their sociological identity as they are about their music tastes. Someone who says "I like comedies, but I can't stand thrillers" isn't making the same kind of statement. And more to the point, there's nothing sociological that precludes someone from enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean or Superman Returns. For music, that's a lot less true.
In short, cinema as a whole must cater to drawing in as many fans as possible. Music simply doesn't need to cater to the whole, because the niche in and of itself can sustain music. Movies are "for the masses"; but if you don't like one thing of music, you can just try another.
Actually, Jackson himself claims he isn't being paid what he's worth, and he's been banned from New Line Cinema as a result.
And actually, while the term "contraction" is rather load, there is a lot of evidence to date suggesting that the many vanity studios under the Big 5 see much better profit margins than their big brethren because they shoot cheap, hire cheap, and market cheap. So they turn a lot of $15 million movies into $70 million returns, whereas Superman Returns, even with its reported $600 million worldwide take, has about the same return. Oh yeah, and you can shoot about 10 $15mil movies in the time it takes to make 1 Superman.
So really, all the complaining about "overpaid" actors and what not is unjustified, because there are plenty (and I mean plenty) of movies being shot for $20 million or less that'll get widescreen release.
I realize that picking on Hollywood fare is the ultimate tempation of low-hanging fruit, but as a counterexample, if you saw just one new movie every week in 2006, you could've seen:
The Departed
The Good Shepherd
Idiocracy
Children of Men
The Good German
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
Thank You For Smoking
When The Levees Broke
Casino Royale
Wordplay
An Inconvenient Truth
The War Tapes
Borat
Half Nelson
Brick
The Last King of Scotland
Requiem
The Devil and Daniel Johnston
Inside Man
United 93
The Descent
Slither
Clerks 2
The Fountain
The Illusionist
The Prestige
Stranger than Fiction
Marie Antoinette
Wicked Little Things
V For Vendetta
Cars
A Scanner Darkly
Fast Food Nation
Notes on a Scandal
Friends With Money
Who Killed The Electric Car?
Catch a Fire
Hollywoodland
Blood Diamond
Apocalypto
The Road To Guantanamo
This Film Is Not Yet Rated
The Painted Veil
Down in the Valley
Lucky Number Slevin
10 Items or Less
Fur
The Breakup
Monster House
Scoop
Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny
So let's see: Scorsese, Eastwood, Woody Allen, Sofia Coppola, Andres Cuaron, Chris Nolan, Aranofsky, Mike Judge, Steven Soderbergh, 2 Spike Lees, 2 Richard Linklaters, Kevin Smith, Pixar, James Bond, some of the best documentaries ever, great performances by Jack Nicholson, Cate Blanchett, Mark Wahlberg, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Robert Downey Jr., Nicole Kidman, Will Ferrell, Judi Dench, Robert DeNiro, Steve Carell, Adrien Brody, Kate Winslet, Forest Whitaker, Clive Owen, Aaron Eckhart, Edward Norton, Hugh Jackman, Ryan Gosling, and in short, one of the most original years Hollywood has had in years.
And just outside of Hollywood you can of course find Pan's Labyrinth, Venus, The History Boys, The Queen, Volver, Babel - all with Hollywood stars and Hollywood money involved, too.
Not every one of those movies might be your cup of tea, but to suggest that Hollywood doesn't provide *any* entertainment is disingenuous at best, and outright self-denial otherwise.
The chief reason for this, though, is the lack of clear requirements on the initital project manager / architect's part, though.
When you're building a bridge, there's a base requirement: something can cross it. Now what can cross it, how fast, structural integrity, etc, all play a factor in the specifics, but at the end of the day, either something can cross the bridge (safely / quickly / profitably) or it cannot.
If you were told to write a program to add two numbers together, and that was all, you'd have a pretty easy time rejecting "hacky" options, too - because you know all of the requirements.
But most of the time you don't, or you misunderstand them, or (in the classic case) you offer up something and the project suddenly takes a dramatic turn because you did one little neat thing in it and they want the whole system programmed around that tiny widget (at the expense of all others).
Comparing software to a bridge is useless. A bridge is like one specific program - a calculator, or a no-frills text editor. Building software is more like urban planning. Now go ask engineers how many times they've screwed the pooch on that one.
No that argument does not suggset creationism should be taught in schools. Read the quote again, and ponder the meaning of the word "interesting" in Matt Groening's worldview.
According to this article, it was put on YouTube and floated to a WaPo reporter before it ever went to the mainstream TV stations. So, no it wasn't shared "after the fact" on the web - this by admission of the Webb staffers themselves. So, yes, more people saw it on CNN than on the 'Net, but the free distribution of the Internet (and the resulting steam it got from there) is what got it larger media attention.
Here's a good theological question:
If there is a God, and he has been around since the beginning of creation, why do you think you are allowed to define was he does and does not care about?
This isn't a troll, this is actually a serious (and much-debated) critique to your argument. Thomas Aquinas definitively believed that the Christian God was immutable - that is, he definitely was either for or against slavery, definitely for or against homosexuality, definitely for or against coveting your neighbor's wife.
So if two people stood up, and one said, "I believe God does care that you call him by the correct name" and one said, "I believe God does not care that you call him by the correct name", then only one of these people was right.
Now here's the interestint thing: if you reject Aquinas's notion - that is, you think both people are right, that we can manifest our own God for our own purposes - then you must reject the existence of God, because at that point there can be no such thing as an eternal God because our own God dies with us.
So in order to believe in God, you must believe that God has always existed AND that he is immutable. So then the question merely becomes "who has the right idea about God?" And while that question is of course unanswerable, it is very easy for me to say that your idea of God and the Christian idea of God are incompatible.
And only one of you is right.