Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

Bill Maher will make fun of anyone, conservative or liberal.

It's not about making fun of him, it's about throwing him under the bus. Maher of all people, I would think would have avoided such a thing.

 

[Gaborn]

It's not about making fun of him, it's about throwing him under the bus. Maher of all people, I would think would have avoided such a thing.

He was the one that committed seppuku with "the point of Al Qaeda's sword"

 

[polyh3dron]

Bachmann: Schools should teach intelligent design

god dammit she needs to chill out on this shit during the primary so she can get the nomination...

or maybe not.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

She's not dumb . . . she's just a brain-washed Jesus freak.

She is so religious that she blots out anything that doesn't fit her demon-haunted world.

If you think half the things she does, than you are dumb. Brain washed is too charitable as it makes her out to be a victim almost.

The problem is not necessarily gathering the news. It is disseminating the news. Moreover, a British daily and a British public television channel are peculiar choices given the American milieu from which this discussion arose.

I wanted to pull from varied sources (two commercial ones in this case). AP as a wire service, BBC as public TV, and The Guardian (keep in mind I mean the website version) which is generally considered to be left wing and has a a heavy focus both on domestic and international politics. As I said earlier I generally work form multiple and varied sources.

I think a more apt comparison would be commercial television news.

If one ignores a focus on commercial news, and instead uses the variable sources I suggest, does your opinion change in regard to access being able to be the key?

Rather than focus on Casey Anthony, Father's Day gift ideas, and other extraneous information, a public media channel could cover the removal of ethanol subsidies, the decoupling of sanctions for the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, and the prospective budget cuts for the nation's weather satellite system. And rather than a blurb, they could actually provide some depth and context.

All worthy topics (I assure you pretty much named the reasons I watch cable news barring some major events and need on the scene footage), but one's you can get all of those from other sources I mentioned. Honestly people should be taking advantage of all the free news they can get and digesting as much a possible.

You also run into a problem of viewership, what will you do if you happen to wind up with a viewership share similar to Al-Hurra or local county channels showing zoning board meetings? The cost is going to be far greater than the later. Hell, look at how many people ignore all the C-SPAN's despite the ability to view the workings of government (often without commentary allowing people to make their opnions).

You also run the risk of people trying to sway the source to the party in control, like at what happened with the with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting during the Bush Administration.

I just don't think it's a winnable or necessary battle. I think improving access (which has numerous other unrelated benefits) and teaching critical thinking skills is a far more valuable investment of the limited resources we have.

 

[RustyNails]

another schism happened with the nomination of McGovern. Most of the Hawks left the Dems to become the Neocon right.

I think if we go back further to great depression era, I'd say that's when the shift began to take place. The Republican party's pro-business stance greatly favored the industrialized north up till the great depression. The high immigration of laborers, high unemployment of African Americans (who traditionally supported Republicans), general dire situation of the poor and middle class, and also the presence of European bourgeois formed a new, pro-labor ideology which opposed big businesses. This new deal coalition backed the Democratic candidate FDR and thrust him into victory, which allowed him to implement social welfare programs.

 

[empty vessel]

All worthy topics (I assure you pretty much named the reasons I watch cable news barring some major events and need on the scene footage), but one's you can get all of those from other sources I mentioned. Honestly people should be taking advantage of all the free news they can get and digesting as much a possible.

That's not the issue. The issue is that this news should be disseminated. Propagated. Broadcast. Radiated. It is in our society's and our democracy's interest that as many people know this information as possible and it is in our society's interest to disseminate it widely. People can still do what they want, but that is no excuse for our not ensuring its dissemination to the broadest audience possible. This is not subject to reasonable disagreement. There is no justification whatsoever--none--for a policy that does not maximize dissemination of news in a democracy. Only an utter moron wants to live in a democracy in which exposure to important information relevant to self-governance is not maximized.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That's not the issue. The issue is that this news should be disseminated. Propagated. Broadcast. Radiated. It is in our society's and our democracy's interest that as many people know this information as possible and it is in our society's interest to disseminate. People can still do what they want, but that is no excuse for our not ensuring its dissemination to the broadest audience possible. This is not subject to reasonable disagreement. There is no justification whatsoever--none--for a policy that does not maximize dissemination of news in a democracy. Only an utter moron wants to live in a democracy in which exposure to important information relevant to self-governance is not maximized.

It will be maximized by improving access for people. That is a far better use of resources as opposed to creating a source with minimal exposure.

 

[empty vessel]

It will be maximized by improving access for people. That is a far better use of resources.

No, it won't. It will be maximized by both improving access and by maximizing dissemination. This is just a mathematical truism.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm consistently shocked at seeing Bill Maher of all people ganging up on Anthony Wiener. :/

Throw him to the wolves, mang. Weiner's a lost cause. I don't care if he's torn apart by anyone. Dude's a lying prick and deserves all the pile-on he gets. He doesn't feel as strongly about liberal issues as he does about his cock. If he did, he would have cared a little about his career in the first place.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

No, it won't. It will be maximized by both improving access and by maximizing dissemination. This is just a mathematical truism.

Except you are operating with some assumption of unlimited resources to throw at things, which in reality you do not have. Thus access (and at the same time connecting every American to the internet like South Korea) and improving libraries and the continued free access to them is a far better use of limited resources than a news channel few will ever watch.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Throw him to the wolves, mang. Weiner's a lost cause. I don't care if he's torn apart by anyone. Dude's a lying prick and deserves all the pile-on he gets. He doesn't feel as strongly about liberal issues as he does about his cock. If he did, he would have cared a little about his career in the first place.

It's more than 7". It outweighs liberal issues.

 

[WickedAngel]

It's not about making fun of him, it's about throwing him under the bus. Maher of all people, I would think would have avoided such a thing.

He was one of the few hopes of a future Democratic party that had balls and he foolishly put himself in a hole that couldn't be climbed out of. A man in his position should have known better and that disappointment is turning into bitter resentment by many of his staunchest supporters.

Is that such a surprise?

 

[PhoenixDark]

He was one of the few hopes of a future Democratic party that had balls and he foolishly put himself in a hole that couldn't be climbed out of. A man in his position should have known better and that disappointment is turning into bitter resentment by many of his staunchest supporters.

Is that such a surprise?

Agreed. Even Markos at Daily Kos has refused to defend him, and literally said "fuck him." I agree 100%

 

[leroidys]

The lack of a truly free market in America.

hurggggggggggggggggggh

 

[Jackson50]

That's not the issue. The issue is that this news should be disseminated. Propagated. Broadcast. Radiated. It is in our society's and our democracy's interest that as many people know this information as possible and it is in our society's interest to disseminate it widely. People can still do what they want, but that is no excuse for our not ensuring its dissemination to the broadest audience possible. This is not subject to reasonable disagreement. There is no justification whatsoever--none--for a policy that does not maximize dissemination of news in a democracy. Only an utter moron wants to live in a democracy in which exposure to important information relevant to self-governance is not maximized.

Precisely. We can (and should) improve access and critical thinking. But those measures only, at best, mitigate the problems created by commercial news.

He was one of the few hopes of a future Democratic party that had balls and he foolishly put himself in a hole that couldn't be climbed out of. A man in his position should have known better and that disappointment is turning into bitter resentment by many of his staunchest supporters.

Is that such a surprise?

No. It is not surprise. Yet it is lamentable. I will miss his performances during committee.

 

[scorcho]

Greenwald on Obama, Libya and the War Powers Resolution - http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/18/libya/index.html

The growing controversy over President Obama's illegal waging of war in Libya got much bigger last night with Charlie Savage's New York Times scoop. He reveals that top administration lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder, OLC Chief Caroline Krass, and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson -- all told Obama that his latest, widely panned excuse for waging war without Congressional approval (that it does not rise to the level of "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution (WPR)) was invalid and that such authorization was legally required after 60 days: itself a generous intepretation of the President's war powers. But Obama rejected those views and (with the support of administration lawyers in lesser positions: his White House counsel and long-time political operative Robert Bauer and State Department "legal adviser" Harold Koh) publicly claimed that the WPR does not apply to Libya.

the whole article is a good read. Greenwald speculates that hubris compelled Obama to not seek Congressional authorization for the military action in spite of very public Republican support. in summary - anything falling under the umbrella of 'national security' is the domain of the Executive Branch.

Lynch has a different take on this - http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/18/benghazi_on_the_hill

The administration should have secured authorization for the Libya campaign early on, to put it on solid legal and bipartisan political footing. Congressional oversight is as important for the Obama administration as it was during the Bush administration -- a point which applies to Libya just as it does to drone strikes and global counter-terrorism operations. They probably didn't do so because they (correctly) expected that a Congressional resolution authorizing the Libya campaign would come to the President's desk with riders attached repealing health care reform, reinstating Don't Ask Don't Tell, and abolishing Medicare. But politics shouldn't be allowed to outweigh the importance of effective Congressional oversight and respecting the rule of law.

haven't found any contemporaneous reporting to suggest that's anything other than pure speculation, though. on a final note, it's still a complete mind fuck to see Lynch and Bill Fucking Kristol in agreement on this mission.

 

[elrechazado]

hurggggggggggggggggggh

Great post. Do you know what a free market actually is?

 

[BigPickZel]

Somalia has free markets.

 

[scorcho]

Somalia has free markets.

If a sizable number of libertarians move to Somalia for their free markets and send remittances back here, we could emulate Somalia's economic recovery.

It's a win-win situation!

 

[balladofwindfishes]

An unregulated free market is no different than an unregulated government.

 

[BigPickZel]

If a sizable number of libertarians move to Somalia for their free markets and send remittances back here, we could emulate Somalia's economic recovery.

It's a win-win situation!

People who point to Somalia as an example of what happens under limited government misunderstand Somalia and libertarianism.

 

[BigPickZel]

An unregulated free market is no different than an unregulated government.

Incorrect. A government rules by force, unregulated markets are ruled by consumer choice.

 

[empty vessel]

Incorrect. A government rules by force, unregulated markets are ruled by consumer choice.

No, unregulated markets are ruled by monopolies within which the consumer has no choice. Free markets do not tend towards competition. They tend towards unaccountable collaboration and very real oppression. Which is why they have been universally rejected the world over.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

An unregulated free market is no different than an unregulated government.

What?
No.
Kimberly-Clark can't tell me who and who cannot get married, or what I can put in my body. They can't send me off to war. I don't care how many tampons they sell.

please explain

 

[BigPickZel]

There is never a situation where a consumer has no choice in a free market.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

There is never a situation where a consumer has no choice in a free market.

I imagine that you're waving your hand, Jedi-like, at the screen while you type these things.

 

[BigPickZel]

I do that with all my posts.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

No. It is not surprise. Yet it is lamentable. I will miss his performances during committee.

"performance" is a perfect word. The guy was a real charlatan.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I imagine that you're waving your hand, Jedi-like, at the screen while you type these things.

You're not imagining it. I felt that too.

 

[scorcho]

hurggggggggggggggggggh

 

[balladofwindfishes]

There is never a situation where a consumer has no choice in a free market.

Healthcare

Anyway, in an unregulated free market, there would be little to stop a corporation from hiring thugs to force you to give them money "for protection"

 

[demon]

There is never a situation where a consumer has no choice in a free market.

I guess the ISP I use doesn't exist in a free market, then.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

hurggggggggggggggggggh

go to sleep

Who's gonna win the golf thing today? Obama or Boehner?
On this one I have to go with Obama. The man wanted to be prez just to improve his golf game.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

No, unregulated markets are ruled by monopolies within which the consumer has no choice. Free markets do not tend towards competition. They tend towards unaccountable collaboration and very real oppression. Which is why they have been universally rejected the world over.

Do governments "tend" towards competition and accountability?

 

[BigPickZel]

Healthcare

Anyway, in an unregulated free market, there would be little to stop a corporation from hiring thugs to force you to give them money "for protection"

Haha, sure, ok.

 

[Frank the Great]

this is such a stupid discussion. free market v. government is a useless debate, we will never have 100% of either, and simple examples from history show that BOTH suck balls if given too much power.

arguing that government or the market does everything categorically better is for simpletons. we should be better than that.

 

[BigPickZel]

I guess the ISP I use doesn't exist in a free market, then.

Don't have internet access. Move somewhere else.

 

[Particle Physicist]

god dammit she needs to chill out on this shit during the primary so she can get the nomination...

or maybe not.

The last election, I think only one Republican candidate said they believed in evolution.....

 

[BigPickZel]

The last election, I think only one Republican candidate said they believed in evolution.....

I love how it's something you "believe" in, not something scientifically supported by reams and reams of solid evidence.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I love how it's something you "believe" in, not something scientifically supported by reams and reams of solid evidence.

Yeah, that is how the question was posed.... 'believe'

 

[scorcho]

Yeah, that is how the question was posed.... 'believe'

Don't squirm out of it - your poor word choice proves evolution is no less a belief system than creationism and flying spaghetti monsters.

 

[BigPickZel]

Personally, I believe the children are our future, but there's not a lot of literature to support my position.

 

[scorcho]

But can't we just teach them well and let them lead the way?

 

[BigPickZel]

That study is currently undergoing peer-review.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Personally, I believe the children are our future, but there's not a lot of literature to support my position.

What are you talking about?

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be
-Whitney Houston

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

An update on the Obama-Boehner Open

Obama drives, Boehner sinks

 

[sprsk]

What are you talking about?

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be
-Whitney Houston

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHRERLEM2eE

 

[BigPickZel]

What are you talking about?

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be
-Whitney Houston

That study is biased.

 

[BigPickZel]

An update on the Obama-Boehner Open

Obama drives, Boehner sinks

All political disagreements should be solved on the golf links. Failing that, giant robot combat.

 

[scorcho]

one of the problem's with Houston's thesis is that it lacks specificity. what, exactly will these children lead the way in? furthermore, it remains unclear what semblance of the past we are to be reminded of, nor how that even relates to the her amorphous premise.

lastly, why am i sipping a glass of Gouden Carolus Classic at 11:25am?