Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

Was watching Rachel Maddow and decided to Wiki her... I knew she was an intelligent person but a rhoades scholar with a PHD was not something i was expecting though it makes sense now that i think about it...

I don't think i have been this surprised about a persons education since i learned both Ron and Rand Paul have MDs.

sorry about the non sequitur but it didnt seem to warrant a new thread and this seemed as good a place as any to display my surprise

Dunno about Ron, but Rand is a self accredited optometrist (or is it ophthamologist).

 

[speculawyer]

She reminds me of Zuel for some reason, I think it's her body frame and hair. I can't be the only one whose noticed this?

Zuul from Ghostbusters? Now I get why "Choose the form of the destructor" is funny.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Dunno about Ron, but Rand is a self accredited optometrist (or is it ophthamologist).

Yeah the second one. Ron Paul is or was a doctor too. Apparently he's delivered a few babies.

 

[Buttchin]

Dunno about Ron, but Rand is a self accredited optometrist (or is it ophthamologist).

Ron was a army surgeon then got training as an OBGYN...

both ron and rand went to duke school of medicine

Rand is an opthomologist and yes he is not traditionally accredited but no one seems to doubt his ability as one

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

You might not be asking the right person, since I don't put a lot of stock in electoral politics to begin with, but if the question is whether I would let somebody's being a furry trump his or her politics, the answer is no. I would prefer to be represented by a progressive furry than a corporate straight man. It's not even a close call for me, because politics are about politics and not one does in the bedroom. So the only thing that matters to me is a person's politics (short of criminal behavior). Obviously, at some point, the person's ability to be effective comes into play, but I would still rather have an ineffective progressive representative than an effective corporate representative, for the vote alone. If there were a primary where Weiner were challenged by somebody whose politics were the same or better than his, then, yes, I'd ditch the less effective for the more effective.

I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, politics is about more than just policy.

 

[Keio]

I've never understood why Fox News being supposedly right-leaning is a bad thing, but it gives people the vapors. People should dislike Fox News because it's terrible.

Because of the brazen lie "Fair and Balanced"? And it being a terrible channel, of course.

 

[Black Republican]

wonder if Clarence Thomas is laughing at this

 

[Big Baybee]

Why won't the media move the fuck on? Jesus Christ I hate politics in this country.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I'm listening to the Weiner resignation speech and someone is screaming in the background "Senator Weiner, are you more than 7 inches?"

LMAO!!!

It was the same guy who shouted out at the first press conference. You would think the people around Weiner would have vetted the room after the first time.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Zuul from Ghostbusters? Now I get why "Choose the form of the destructor" is funny.

Yep, though I guess I meant to say Gozer.

 

[eznark]

Monogamy is not the natural state of man.

Neither is clothing, yet somehow we all manage to make it work.

While obviously flip, roughly nothing we do in modern society is the "natural state of man," and using that excuse for being a scumbag is ridiculous.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Neither is clothing, yet somehow we all manage to make it work.

While obviously flip, roughly nothing we do in modern society is the "natural state of man," and using that excuse for being a scumbag is ridiculous.

It's not supposed to be an excuse. It's simply supposed to reflect the understanding that when people fail the Disney standard for conduct in monogamous relationships, it shouldn't be cause for the nonsensical moral outrage this event has elicited.

 

[JGS]

Disney standard for monogamy is...monogamy?

*Updates dictionary*

Seriously things like this would be less controversial if people simply assumed that their representatives were perverts in the firs place. This is largely the fault of the pious politician.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Disney standard for monogamy is...monogamy?

*Updates dictionary*

Seriously things like this would be less controversial if people simply assumed that their representatives were perverts in the firs place. This is largely the fault of the pious politician.

1 man. 1 woman. Forever. No complaints. Happily ever after.

That's not how it works, and people who are shocked by that fact have unreasonable expectations.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Yeah, good luck getting the conventions of western relationships changed anytime soon, PolyGAF.

On that note, I find it wild that a little over a month ago I (half jokingly, mind you) put up the suggestion of Weiner as a presidential candidate. Shit changes fast...

 

[eznark]

It's not supposed to be an excuse. It's simply supposed to reflect the understanding that when people fail the Disney standard for conduct in monogamous relationships, it shouldn't be cause for the nonsensical moral outrage this event has elicited.

I would like to say it's because he lied more than because he cheated, but Clinton did both and on a much larger scale so I don't know. Maybe because his name is Weiner.

I haven't been outraged, but I understand the outrage from within his staff and from anyone who interviewed him. I just assume politicians are always lying so it wasn't a shock to me, but if my boss lied to my face and had me working under false assumptions I would be furious.

That's not how it works, and people who are shocked by that fact have unreasonable expectations.

She didn't deserve you anyway. You're better off!

 

[Jackson50]

In a move long overdue, the UNSC will vote today to decouple the economic sanctions for the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. Lamentably, rather than foretelling an overdue change in our counter-terrorism policy, it seems to be a ploy to appease Taliban members and facilitate reconciliation; not that reconciliation is undesirable. It is merely a futile endeavor.

UN to delink al-Qaida and Taliban sanctions to improve terrorism fight and promote talks
By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, June 17, 1:04 AM

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council has decided to treat al-Qaida and the Taliban separately when it comes to U.N. sanctions in an attempt to more effectively fight terrorism and support the Afghan government’s reconciliation efforts.

The council scheduled a meeting Friday afternoon to vote on two new resolutions — one aimed at individuals and organizations on a sanctions blacklist because of links to al-Qaida and others on a blacklist because of links to the hardline Islamic Taliban regime.​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...011/06/17/AGCaiLYH_story.html?wprss=rss_world

I don't think British people ignore the BBC. The problem with the US, because there is no publicly funded press, is that news in the public interest, i.e., news that a democratic electorate needs in order to have a legitimate democracy, is simply not disseminated. There are some private non-profit entities (NPR, PBS, Pacifa) that are close facsimiles, but they are either too biased in favor of their private donors (and hence not adequately covering the public interest) or are too resource-deprived to adequately disseminate necessary information.



It's got to be structured in a way that prevents that, i.e., institutionally given enough independence from the government. But this is a far lesser concern in an authentic democracy. In non-democratic societies, the state press is obviously horrible, but that's not a function of their being publicly funded, it's a function of the non-democratic nature of the government. Regardless, the best bulwark against a publicly funded media supporting those already in power is an egalitarian society with minimal wealth and income inequalities. Indeed, that's the best bulwark even against an undemocratic or abusive government. Democracies necessarily converge towards egalitarianism. If a particular society isn't converging, you're probably not looking at a democracy.

As to private media "expressing an opinion" that differs from mine. We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about news. Objective and unsentimental (and unsensational) reporting of what is happening in the society, in the government, and in the world. Private entities, particularly of the for-profit corporate variety, are incapable of doing that. Indeed, it would be illegal for them to under current law that imposes fiduciary duties on corporations to maximize shareholder returns.

That is why we should rescind the (farcical) public interest requirement for private media, charge a small broadcast fee, and fund a robust public media.

 

[JGS]

1 man. 1 woman. Forever. No complaints. Happily ever after.

That's not how it works, and people who are shocked by that fact have unreasonable expectations.

That's fine, that just means monogamy doesn't exist. However, that's incorrect too.

I'm never shocked by people who cheat on their spouses (Especially politicians), but I would be shocked if life gets to the point where there are no repercussions for lying to the one you falsely said you'd be with for life.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Apparently the people who shouted at Weiner's resignation were from the Howard Stern show.

 

[eznark]

It's a shame Weiner is covering up a true scumbag story

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...questing-millions-his-aging-benefactor/38933/

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That is why we should rescind the (farcical) public interest requirement for private media, charge a small broadcast fee, and fund a robust public media.

I'm not paying a tax for publicly funded news (besides just use the Radio Free programs or the various other US funded medias internet stream). Besides it will be considered a tool of the US Government anyway (as the others often are, even if they are pretty good), be subject to the politics of the people working their or in power (as has happened with the BBC at times), so yeah, not advisable for a tourist to visit the canals at night.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

In a move long overdue, the UNSC will vote today to decouple the economic sanctions for the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. Lamentably, rather than foretelling an overdue change in our counter-terrorism policy, it seems to be a ploy to appease Taliban members and facilitate reconciliation; not that reconciliation is undesirable. It is merely a futile endeavor.

To oversimplify a little, I think it's pretty much the case that we're going to turn it over to the Taliban when we leave. This seems like a way to help that happen sooner rather than later, and I'm honestly ok with that.

That's fine, that just means monogamy doesn't exist. However, that's incorrect too.

I'm never shocked by people who cheat on their spouses (Especially politicians), but I would be shocked if life gets to the point where there are no repercussions for lying to the one you falsely said you'd be with for life.

I'm not saying monogamy doesn't exist. Just that it's not as rigid as some people would have you think.

And it'll probably be a better thing for a lot of people if they learn that saying they'll be with someone for life is not a commitment they can make honestly. Nor should they want to, necessarily.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I'm not paying a tax for publicly funded news (besides just use the Radio Free programs or the various other US funded medias internet stream). Besides it will be considered a tool of the US Government anyway (as the others often are, even if they are pretty good), be subject to the politics of the people working their or in power (as has happened with the BBC at times), so yeah, not advisable for a tourist to visit the canals at night.

What do you perceive the government as?

Some kind of totalitarian propaganda machine?
I never can understand some people's irrational fear that everything a democratically elected government does is done with only vile intentions in mind.

 

[Dude Abides]

I would like to say it's because he lied more than because he cheated, but Clinton did both and on a much larger scale so I don't know. Maybe because his name is Weiner.

It's because there are pics, and because Weiner's mails are so pathetic. Bill was just a horny goat banging the intern. Weiner was a pathetic creep obsessed with talking about his package.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

What do you perceive the government as?

Some kind of totalitarian propaganda machine?
I never can understand some people's irrational fear that everything a democratically elected government does is done with only vile intentions in mind.

Myself, no, but I promise you most people will. If this existed during the Bush Administration liberals would object, during the Obama Administration, conservatives would object. It would never gain any sort of viewership. How would it be properly run and divorced from it's source if it is to remain impartial? Do you (or anyone not in the military/on base)view the news programs run by the DOD, how about Radio Free Liberty, or that Arabic channel the US runs?

 

[mckmas8808]

Our biology is driven by evolution. Early human males were nomadic warriors that would often kill weaker males and have sex with their women. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of years of this kind of genetic genocide being passed along. Even as humans began to learn to tame the land, grow crops and settle down, there are still numerous civilizations that would treat the females as merely playthings to be passed around among the elders. Sometimes even the young boys. You can still see traces of that in many backwards societies that still exist today.

Stretch it back even further, and chimps and bonobos (our closest relatives) are prodigiously promiscuous. In fact, a strictly monogamous animal is a very rare thing to find in nature.

That impetus to procreate trumps all. Love and relationships are merely a chemically-induced constructs within our brains to trick us into procreating and hanging around for awhile to raise the child. 'The seven year itch' isn't just a media-created idea ... it's evolution, baby.

But it's still not a good excuse that will or should be accepted in our society.

 

[empty vessel]

Myself, no, but I promise you most people will. If this existed during the Bush Administration liberals would object, during the Obama Administration, conservatives would object. It would never gain any sort of viewership. How would it be properly run and divorced from it's source if it is to remain impartial? Do you (or anyone not in the military/on base)view the news programs run by the DOD, how about Radio Free Liberty, or that Arabic channel the US runs?

Why don't you ask the BBC. Why do you think Americans are such uniquely cretinous assholes that they are inherently incapable of setting up and running something like the BBC?

A democratic government is perfectly capable of establishing a publicly funded media. Now, if your contention is that we don't have a democratic government (a contention I would probably agree with), then that raises other questions that need to be addressed. But let's be clear what we're talking about and what your position is.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Why don't you ask the BBC. Why do you think Americans are such uniquely cretinous assholes that they are inherently incapable of setting up and running something like the BBC?

edit: Don't get me wrong, I would support a robust publicly funded broadcasting corporation, but I can also understand why people would be deeply cynical about such an endeavor.

 

[mckmas8808]

1 man. 1 woman. Forever. No complaints. Happily ever after.

That's not how it works, and people who are shocked by that fact have unreasonable expectations.

How about when you screw up, don't lie about it 25 times in one day on national tv to 300 million people.

 

[eznark]

How about when you screw up, don't lie about it 25 times in one day on national tv to 300 million people.

It's not enough to claim that is the reason why the leadership rejected him though. Clinton's lies were far, far more substantial as he made them under oath. Yet he maintained full support from allies (I think, I don't completely recall the reaction from dem leadership).

Its a combination of Weiner being a smug prick, the pictures (as pointed out above) and the current always-on media combined with the creep factor.

It certainly isn't just that he lied though.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Just sticking my head in to say, AWESOME thread title.

Prolly the best PoliGAF one yet.

 

[soul creator]

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fg-britain-health-care-20110613,0,1237142.story

The UK is afraid of getting "American style" health care. I guess we're basically considered death panels over there, lol

 

[Invisible_Insane]

How about when you screw up, don't lie about it 25 times in one day on national tv to 300 million people.

Did he hurt your feelings?

I'm not saying that it was acceptable for him to lie. I just think the circumstances and his motivations bear more thinking about than a lot of people here are willing to concede. He lied, yes, to try to preserve a job he was passionate about. I don't think that makes him a terrible person.

 

[CrankyJay]

Heard some of the Weiner press conference yesterday. People were screaming at him "PERVERT" and another guy goes "SO HOW BIG IS IT? 7 INCHES?"

 

[lo escondido]

Heard some of the Weiner press conference yesterday. People were screaming at him "PERVERT" and another guy goes "SO HOW BIG IS IT? 7 INCHES?"

I don't know who said "PERVERT" but benjy Bronk from howard stern was the 7 inches guy

 

[empty vessel]

edit: Don't get me wrong, I would support a robust publicly funded broadcasting corporation, but I can also understand why people would be deeply cynical about such an endeavor.

I can, too, if they doubt the democratic authenticity of their government. Which is why I added a follow-up on my post. I think our society's drastic inequality does give a rise to a question about the democratic nature of our government, and I could understand wanting to secure a more robust democratic government before instituting a publicly funded media. But there's a catch-22, because you need a publicly funded media to create a more robust democratic government. Well, maybe you don't need one, but it sure would make things easier. That said, we are extremely unlikely to get a publicly funded media until we secure for ourselves a more robust democratic government, so at the end of the day, it would appear we just have a lot of hard work to do and we can't expect any help in doing it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

edit: Don't get me wrong, I would support a robust publicly funded broadcasting corporation, but I can also understand why people would be deeply cynical about such an endeavor.

Thank you.

I am also a fan of PBS, so it's not like I have some rabid dislike of public funding for the arts, just not USBC.

Why don't you ask the BBC. Why do you think Americans are such uniquely cretinous assholes that they are inherently incapable of setting up and running something like the BBC?

The BBC had a long history in radio, far before transferring into television and is not only a news organization. Therefore you comparison is not apt.

It's also not like the BBC is inviolable. The same types of things that exist in non-governmental funded media also occur.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/bbc-in-crisis-over-faked-_n_878925.html?ir=World

There are often allegations of bias or use as propaganda of the BBC throughout it's entire existence (across the political spectrum). It's just not going to fly in the United States.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

There are allegations, but do they mean anything? Is there facts behind the allegations, or is it simply people being angry that the BBC is reporting facts that the people don't agree with or that hurt their political message.

 

[MalboroRed]

I can, too, if they doubt the democratic authenticity of their government. Which is why I added a follow-up on my post. I think our society's drastic inequality does give a rise to a question about the democratic nature of our government, and I could understand wanting to secure a more robust democratic government before instituting a publicly funded media. But there's a catch-22, because you need a publicly funded media to create a more robust democratic government. Well, maybe you don't need one, but it sure would make things easier. That said, we are extremely unlikely to get a publicly funded media until we secure for ourselves a more robust democratic government, so at the end of the day, it would appear we just have a lot of hard work to do and we can't expect any help in doing it.

So government controlled media creates a more robust democratic government? That makes no sense. The advantage of having private media broadcasting companies is that people can support whichever company they like, they're not forced to pay for publicly funded media regardless of whether they agree with the message and policy or not, the key is freedom to choose and not be forced to pay for something you don't support. If someone doesn't like PBS and doesn't like the views expressed on PBS, should that person be forced to support it through his or her tax dollars?

Did he hurt your feelings?

I'm not saying that it was acceptable for him to lie. I just think the circumstances and his motivations bear more thinking about than a lot of people here are willing to concede. He lied, yes, to try to preserve a job he was passionate about. I don't think that makes him a terrible person.

He's a bold-face liar, when confronted he didn't even have the guts to answer the question, all he did was stonewall questions from reporters like HE was the one who got to dictate what could be asked and what could not, and when he did he flat out lied, several times.

And he couldn't even have a real affair, he goes on the internet to send pictures of himself to try to establish an extra-marital affair online, even the women he tried to chat up on twitter wouldn't give him any sympathy, I'd say he's a terrible person and the worst kind of politician. He should have resigned earlier.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

There are allegations, but do they mean anything? Is there facts behind the allegations, or is it simply people being angry that the BBC is reporting facts that the people don't agree with or that hurt their political message.

I was pretty much going to say exactly this. That objectively reported news may make you look foolish does not mean that it's biased against you.

 

[lo escondido]

I can, too, if they doubt the democratic authenticity of their government. Which is why I added a follow-up on my post. I think our society's drastic inequality does give a rise to a question about the democratic nature of our government, and I could understand wanting to secure a more robust democratic government before instituting a publicly funded media. But there's a catch-22, because you need a publicly funded media to create a more robust democratic government. Well, maybe you don't need one, but it sure would make things easier. That said, we are extremely unlikely to get a publicly funded media until we secure for ourselves a more robust democratic government, so at the end of the day, it would appear we just have a lot of hard work to do and we can't expect any help in doing it.

Is is wrong just to think that the government shouldn't be running the news. Its nothing doubting the democratic nature its just the government has no place to decide what is and isn't news.

Could it investigate itself? Would watergate have happened without a private media? If it was "democratically controlled" as you want to put government run media how would minority or diverging views get out?

And I don't get your whole if there isn't wealth equality were not a democracy, thats just not true.

If someone doesn't like PBS and doesn't like the views expressed on PBS, should that person be forced to support it through his or her tax dollars?

Don't people in the UK complain all the time about the licence fee? Don't bring that crap over here.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

So government controlled media creates a more robust democratic government? That makes no sense. The advantage of having private media broadcasting companies is that people can support whichever company they like, they're not forced to pay for publicly funded media regardless of whether they agree with the message and policy or not, the key is freedom to choose and not be forced to pay for something you don't support. If someone doesn't like PBS and doesn't like the views expressed on PBS, should that person be forced to support it through his or her tax dollars?

I feel like I said this at least ten times in the last thread:

GOVERNMENT FUNDING =! GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Don't people in the UK complain all the time about the licence fee? Don't bring that crap over here.

"People will complain" is a terrible reason not to do something. And what I said above goes for you too.

 

[lo escondido]

I feel like I said this at least ten times in the last thread:

GOVERNMENT FUNDING =! GOVERNMENT CONTROL

I don't think people are thinking NPR they're thinking BBC which is government run.

And the fact that if you fund it enough you effectively control it because you can just take away the money

so

ENOUGH GOVERNMENT FUNDING = GOVERNMENT CONTROL

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I don't think people are thinking NPR they're thinking BBC which is government run.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcaster, headquartered at Broadcasting House in the City of Westminster, London.[1] It is the largest broadcaster in the world, with about 23,000 staff.[2][3][4] Its main responsibility is to provide public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster[4] that operates under a Royal Charter[5] and a Licence and Agreement from the Home Secretary.[6] Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee,[7] which is charged to all United Kingdom households, companies and organisations using any type of equipment to record and/or receive live television broadcasts;[8] the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament.[9]

Come on, now.

 

[lo escondido]

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcaster, headquartered at Broadcasting House in the City of Westminster, London.[1] It is the largest broadcaster in the world, with about 23,000 staff.[2][3][4] Its main responsibility is to provide public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster[4] that operates under a Royal Charter[5] and a Licence and Agreement from the Home Secretary.[6] Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee,[7] which is charged to all United Kingdom households, companies and organisations using any type of equipment to record and/or receive live television broadcasts;[8] the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament.[9]

Come on, now.

from the same wikipedia
Owner(s): The Crown

Like I said you can call it autonomous but the government controls it through the purse. Look at all the world service cuts those were "offical" decided by the trust by directly due to government policy.

And also it is run by the BBC trust which is made up of people appointed by the crown and approved by the government.

Are you going to say the US Post Office isn't government run?


I love the BBC (along with RTVE, France 24, Deutsche Welle) and what it does I just don't want that kind of thing over here in the US.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I still enjoy BBC's documentaries. Excellent work despite their....less than stellar journalism.

 

[empty vessel]

The BBC had a long history in radio, far before transferring into television and is not only a news organization. Therefore you comparison is not apt.

I don't understand what you think this means. And I think we should have publicly funded media as well that is broader than news. But publicly funded news is a prerequisite for democracy. If you don't have it, you don't have a democracy (because you don't have an adequately informed public).

It's also not like the BBC is inviolable. The same types of things that exist in non-governmental funded media also occur.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/bbc-in-crisis-over-faked-_n_878925.html?ir=World

There are often allegations of bias or use as propaganda of the BBC throughout it's entire existence (across the political spectrum). It's just not going to fly in the United States.

These aren't arguments against publicly funded media. And nobody said that the BBC is--or that any American equivalent would be--perfect. The argument is that they are essential to adequately inform the public, and an adequately informed public is essential to a democracy. Finally, saying that X is "not going to fly" also is not an argument. It's a prediction, and an unsupportable one at that. The American government used to provide a lot of funding to media, including NPR, when American society was more egalitarian. Ever since corporate and financial business interests ramped up their political organizing in the mid-1970's and drastically cut funding for publicly media, the results have been predictable: increased inequality, decreased public knowledge, and diminished democracy (if you can call it that at all, and I would argue you can't).

from the same wikipedia
Owner(s): The Crown

Like I said you can call it autonomous but the government controls it through the purse. Look at all the world service cuts those were "offical" decided by the trust by directly due to government policy.

And also it is run by the BBC trust which is made up of people appointed by the crown and approved by the government.

Are you going to say the US Post Office isn't government run?

Are you going to make a case that the BBC is not among the best disseminators of news in the world? That might be more direct to the issue at hand than pussyfooting around who "controls" it. Make the case that we should avoid the BBC due to its pro-crown propaganda.

 

[speculawyer]

This whole discussion of monogamy is one of those things that really hurts the left on a political basis. Many on the left have this terrible habit of dealing with reality and thus dig up statistics on cheating and divorce. The right and much of public prefer happy mythology. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it is for life! (Never mind reality . . . I've got my fingers in my ears nanananananana!)

This is where the right brings up things like "The left wants to make marriage a 7 year contract" . . . Even though that was bogus, it rings true with discussions like this one happening.

So although it can be discussed honestly here. The politicians on the left are wisely not saying any of this stuff.


It will be nice when people can talk about reality honestly but that just isn't how the game is played.

 

[LosDaddie]

All I know is that NPR is the best new outlet in America, and that wouldn't be the case without govt funding. So if the choice is between more govt-funded news outlets like NPR and privately funded outlets like Fox/MSNBC/CNN, then I'll take more NPR by a wide margin.

The news may become more boring, but that's fine with me.

 

[MalboroRed]

I feel like I said this at least ten times in the last thread:

GOVERNMENT FUNDING =! GOVERNMENT CONTROL



"People will complain" is a terrible reason not to do something. And what I said above goes for you too.

Government controls through funding.

If people don't want something then the government shouldn't force it on them, that's the whole point of a democratic government, it has to represent the majority, put it to a vote, let people know what is the impact on them in terms of increase tax burden, try to justify by arguing on behalf of it based on the supposed benefits instead of forcing people to pay for something that the majority don't want.