• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

teiresias

Member
Incognito said:
msnbc is getting dangerously close to turning legitimate christie corruption scandals into a cause celebre of the left, a sort of bridgeghazi that only committed leftists can understand. or am i misreading their coverage?
Click to expand...

I think you're misreading how many people give a damn about MSNBC, yeah.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Looks like the governors that opted out of the Medicaid expansion could be left with blood on their hands. Literally.

Study: Thousands Of People Will Die In States That Don't Expand Medicaid

As many as 17,000 Americans will die directly as a result of states deciding not to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, according to a new study.

Researchers from Harvard University and City University of New York have estimated that between 7,115 and 17,104 deaths will be "attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states" in a study published in Health Affairs.

"The results were sobering," Samuel Dickman, one of the authors, said, according to the Morning Call. "Political decisions have consequences, some of them lethal."

They projected that 423,000 fewer diabetics would receive medication to treat their disease. If opt-out states had expanded Medicaid, 659,000 women who are in need of mammograms and 3.1 million women who should receive regular pap smears would have become insured, the study found.

"Low-income adults in states that have opted out of Medicaid expansion will forego gains in access to care, financial well-being, physical and mental health, and longevity that would be expected with expanded Medicaid coverage," the authors wrote.
Click to expand...


Truly the "Fuck you, I got mine" generation of politicians.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-gop-no-path-to-

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told House Republicans that the immigration blueprint his leadership team released on Thursday was "as far as we are willing to go" to make reform happen, according to a source in the room.

The blueprint supports legal status for undocumented immigrants, which is already further than many conservatives want to go. If Democrats demand the promise of citizenship for people living in the U.S. illegally, as the bill passed by the Senate would do, the Speaker said the House would block reform.

"These standards are as far as we are willing to go," Boehner told Republicans on Thursday afternoon at their annual retreat in Cambridge, MD, according to the source. "Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that for her caucus, it is a special path to citizenship or nothing. If Democrats insist on that, then we are not going to get anywhere this year."
Click to expand...

Someone needs to start a 'GOP stand for second class citizenship' or something.

I don't know what Boehner is thinking. He probably can't even get this bill out of the house. He'll lose half his caucus and he'll get like 30-40 dems max. Only thing I can see is pandering to the medias obsession with pretending the GOP is trying to compromise
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
rocketknight said:
Gee golly, sounds like a great time for an executive order!
Click to expand...

I just don't get why Democrats aren't holding the Boehner's feet to the fire about things like this and the food stamp cuts. Every single time Democrats ever hold one slightly unpopular opinion which the Republicans don't have, the Republicans latch onto that and it's about the only thing you'll ever hear about for the rest of the year.

Whenever Republicans hold an unpopular position, Democrats just say "oh well, I guess that's just the way things are" and simply drop it. I don't know if I've even heard ENDA brought up outside of the internet. Why wouldn't this be included in the SOTU address? I mean there isn't a single state in the entire freaking union where the majority has a negative view of this bill.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
codhand said:
I'd ask you the same thing if your answers werent so predictable at this point.
Click to expand...

You are being so cryptic that I don't even know what you are trying to argue. That NPR is public radio? It isn't. It gets public subsidies, but most of its funding is private. It used to be almost entirely publicly funded--what it means to be "public"--before business interests killed it.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Quinnipiac poll in Florida: Clinton leads all comers

Hillary Clinton (D) 49
Jeb Bush (R) 43

Hillary Clinton (D) 51
Marco Rubio (R) 41

Hillary Clinton (D) 52
Paul Ryan (R) 39

Hillary Clinton (D) 53
Rand Paul (R) 38

Hillary Clinton (D) 54
Ted Cruz (R) 34
Click to expand...
Hm, it seems there's one name on there that I missed. Wait for it...

Hillary Clinton (D) 51
Chris Christie (R) 35
Click to expand...
Ouch! Christie is more electable than only Ted Cruz.

Also a Democratic presidential candidate winning by double digits in Florida? We're winning like 300 seats in the House at that point.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Cyan said:
>_<

I lean one way, but I stay out of internet discussions on this subject. Check out the thread to see why.

The one thing everyone can agree on is that damn it must suck for Kercher's family. :(
Click to expand...

i dont take a stance on if she is innocent or guilty, i'm more in the camp that the whole thing got so fucked up by the italians that there is no way she could be convicted in good conscience
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
empty vessel said:
NPR isn't public radio. We don't have that in the US. Republicans killed public radio in the 1970's. Killing pubic radio was one of business's first moves in its war against the US public.
Click to expand...

If you view the term "public broadcasting" to mean that it's entirely funded through taxes, you're correct. But I view the term to refer more directly to its goal, which is to provide news as a public service rather than to serve commercial interests.

Frankly, I don't want an entirely government-funded domestic news service. I like and respect the work of the BBC, but I can't say I desire a similar service in the U.S.
 
E

East Lake

Member
BertramCooper said:
If you view the term "public broadcasting" to mean that it's entirely funded through taxes, you're correct. But I view the term to refer more directly to its goal, which is to provide news as a public service rather than to serve commercial interests.

Frankly, I don't want an entirely government-funded domestic news service. I like and respect the work of the BBC, but I can't say I desire a similar service in the U.S.
Click to expand...
They still can end up serving commercial interest though when large parts of their funding are reliant on it. Check out this story about David Koch's donations.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Quinnipiac poll in Florida: Clinton leads all comers


Hm, it seems there's one name on there that I missed. Wait for it...


Ouch! Christie is more electable than only Ted Cruz.

Also a Democratic presidential candidate winning by double digits in Florida? We're winning like 300 seats in the House at that point.
Click to expand...

You realize no one is going to win Florida by 10 points in 2016 right? I don't think 2016 polls (in 2014) matter, but the size of the lead is interesting I guess. But ultimately, Hillary's positives will drop the minute the race begins; that happens to everyone. Whoever wins Florida will get 51-53% of the vote.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
East Lake said:
They still can end up serving commercial interest though when large parts of their funding are reliant on it. Check out this story about David Koch's donations.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
Click to expand...

I'm not doubting that conflicts of interests happen.

But by and large, I think public broadcasting services like NPR and PBS do an excellent job - considerably better than the overwhelming majority of domestic news sources in the U.S.

No news service is or ever will be fully impartial. But NPR and PBS are far better than most.

Fenderputty said:
May I ask why?
Click to expand...

Because I'm skeptical enough of our government that I don't necessarily trust them not to meddle with a government-owned domestic news service.

Imagine if NPR and PBS were fully government-owned and had to constantly deal with Republicans holding their entire funding hostage. Imagine the chilling effect that would have.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
BertramCooper said:
I think public broadcasting services like NPR and PBS do an excellent job - considerably better than the overwhelming majority of domestic news sources in the U.S.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree, but I take this more as a comment on the abject failure of for-profit private media. I also just don't think it's accurate to refer to NPR and PBS as public broadcasting, because the majority of their funding is private. I would call them non-profit private media. (At least, if we are to use the usual convention of referring to corporations as "private" entities.)

I also look at the relative difference between NPR and PBS and private for-profit media and instead of being content, I see an opportunity to make them even better by re-establishing their public nature. I understand you have objections to public media. We just disagree on that. I think that media can only truly disseminate necessary information for self-governance when it is fully independent from private interests exercising influence over its content. Public media does raise the specter of state interests influencing the media, but that by definition will be more transparent and thus capable of being protected against far more than private influence. At least that's how I see it.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
BertramCooper said:
Because I'm skeptical enough of our government that I don't necessarily trust them not to meddle with a government-owned domestic news service.
Click to expand...

But it wouldn't be the only service. So even if there's reason for concern, it would be balanced by all the private options.

Skepticism seems like a short sighted reason to not have it at all. Especially since I'm sure you're equally skeptical of those conflicting private interests.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
empty vessel said:
I don't really disagree, but I take this more as a comment on the abject failure of for-profit private media. I also just don't think it's accurate to refer to NPR and PBS as public broadcasting, because the majority of their funding is private. I would call them non-profit private media. (At least, if we are to use the usual convention of referring to corporations as "private" entities.)
Click to expand...

So in this instance, we're merely having semantic debate. I get that. When I use the term, I'm simply using the definition used by public broadcasting itself. I'm not really commenting on its funding - I'm just using the term as it's currently defined.

I also look at the relative difference between NPR and PBS and private for-profit media and instead of being content, I see an opportunity to make them even better by re-establishing their public nature. I understand you have objections to public media. We just disagree on that. I think that media can only truly disseminate necessary information for self-governance when it is fully independent from private interests exercising influence over its content. Public media does raise the specter of state interests influencing the media, but that by definition will be more transparent and thus capable of being protected against far more than private influence. At least that's how I see it.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't object to increased government funding for NPR and PBS. I'm thrilled to have my tax dollars go to support them in addition to the monthly donation I make to my local public station. But at this particular moment, I'm extremely wary of NPR and PBS ever being fully dependent on government for funding, both for editorial reasons and for their own long-term stability.

Fenderputty said:
But it wouldn't be the only service. So even if there's reason for concern, it would be balanced by all the private options.
Click to expand...

I honestly would never trust our commercial news media to serve as a truly effective check on a government broadcaster. At least not the ones we currently have.

Skepticism seems like a short sighted reason to not have it at all. Especially since I'm sure you're equally skeptical of those conflicting private interests.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm skeptical of the private interests, but I think NPR and PBS' diverse mix of funding ensures a pretty good balance of interests. To my recollection, NPR always acknowledges companies that have underwritten them when reporting stories involving said companies, and I can't remember an instance where an NPR underwriter made national news and NPR blatantly ignored the story.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
You realize no one is going to win Florida by 10 points in 2016 right? I don't think 2016 polls (in 2014) matter, but the size of the lead is interesting I guess. But ultimately, Hillary's positives will drop the minute the race begins; that happens to everyone. Whoever wins Florida will get 51-53% of the vote.
Click to expand...
It's good for the trendlines, I think.

APKmetsfan said:
The polls mean nothing at this point
Click to expand...
The polls mean everything. If Hillary was able to beat Giuliani in 08 I think this bodes well.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
BertramCooper said:
Of course I'm skeptical of the private interests, but I think NPR and PBS' diverse mix of funding ensures a pretty good balance of interests. To my recollection, NPR always acknowledges companies that have underwritten them when reporting stories involving said companies, and I can't remember an instance where an NPR underwriter made national news and NPR blatantly ignored the story.
Click to expand...

I think the private influence would be far more subtle than that, but still quite pernicious. And it isn't just big donors and corporations that would influence content here. Even the private fundraising from viewers and members will have a distorting effect, because those stations will have to cater to those donors, most of whom will be white and middle class. Thus these stations will tend to ignore--at least more than they otherwise would--the interests of the non-donating population, i.e., blue collar people and racial minorities. So those stations will not serve those populations effectively. And that's about half, or even more, of the entire population.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
empty vessel said:
I think the private influence would be far more subtle than that, but still quite pernicious. And it isn't just big donors and corporations that would influence content here. Even the private fundraising from viewers and members will have a distorting effect, because those stations will have to cater to those donors, most of whom will be white and middle class. Thus these stations will tend to ignore--at least more than they otherwise would--the interests of the non-donating population, i.e., blue collar people and racial minorities. So those stations will not serve those populations effectively. And that's about half, or even more, of the entire population.
Click to expand...

I certainly could see that, but as I stated earlier, I think having to deal with a government that could potentially be very hostile and adversarial toward the broadcaster could have a far more significant chilling effect upon the broadcaster than the situation you've described.

We've seen several scrapes between NPR/PBS and Republicans in recent years. Imagine a situation in which NPR/PBS were fully government funded and had to beg a Romney White House, a Boehner House and a McConnell Senate to maintain their current funding levels. It would be a nightmare. And frankly, they'd still be catering to corporate interests - just indirectly.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
empty vessel said:
I think the private influence would be far more subtle than that, but still quite pernicious. And it isn't just big donors and corporations that would influence content here. Even the private fundraising from viewers and members will have a distorting effect, because those stations will have to cater to those donors, most of whom will be white and middle class. Thus these stations will tend to ignore--at least more than they otherwise would--the interests of the non-donating population, i.e., blue collar people and racial minorities. So those stations will not serve those populations effectively. And that's about half, or even more, of the entire population.
Click to expand...

A few years ago Michelle Obama was in the early stages of rolling out her school health initiatives. Part of that was a ban on candy, soda and salty snacks in school vending machines. She sat down for an interview with one of NPR's big interviewers - I think it was Michelle Norris but I'm not sure. One of the first questions was, isn't it unfair to the big corporations who make these sweet and salty foods to ban them from the vending machines? They'll lose profits.

I turned the radio off.

She's on a "public" radio station fretting to the first lady of the US about lost corporate profits her health initiatives would cause. If NPR didn't get corporate funding, I don't think she'd have been so worried about it.

(Obama's typically sensible response was, those same companies can just sell healthier foods. But the question really bugged me. Their corporate sponsorships was the first thing that came to mind.)
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
BertramCooper said:
I certainly could see that, but as I stated earlier, I think having to deal with a government that could potentially be very hostile and adversarial toward the broadcaster could have a far more significant chilling effect upon the broadcaster than the situation you've described.

We've seen several scrapes between NPR/PBS and Republicans in recent years. Imagine a situation in which NPR/PBS were fully government funded and had to beg a Romney White House, a Boehner House and a McConnell Senate to maintain their current funding levels. It would be a nightmare. And frankly, they'd still be catering to corporate interests - just indirectly.
Click to expand...

Well, part of getting publicly funded media back is the political defeat of the interests that back Boehner, McConnell, etc. They pretty much go hand-in-hand. The issue ultimately boils down, as it does in so many other places, to public vigilance about business influence on government. In other words, the onus is on us as participants in a democratic government not only to restore public media, but also to ensure its integrity once restored. It's what democracy is all about! (Of course that depends upon supporting public media in the first place!)
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
A few years ago Michelle Obama was in the early stages of rolling out her school health initiatives. Part of that was a ban on candy, soda and salty snacks in school vending machines. She sat down for an interview with one of NPR's big interviewers - I think it was Michelle Norris but I'm not sure. One of the first questions was, isn't it unfair to the big corporations who make these sweet and salty foods to ban them from the vending machines? They'll lose profits.

I turned the radio off.

She's on a "public" radio station fretting to the first lady of the US about lost corporate profits her health initiatives would cause. If NPR didn't get corporate funding, I don't think she'd have been so worried about it.

(Obama's typically sensible response was, those same companies can just sell healthier foods. But the question really bugged me. Their corporate sponsorships was the first thing that came to mind.)
Click to expand...

If it was indeed Michele Norris, that's actually quite interesting, because she had to take an extended leave of absence from NPR because her husband worked on Obama's 2012 campaign.

empty vessel said:
Well, part of getting publicly funded media back is the political defeat of the interests that back Boehner, McConnell, etc. They pretty much go hand-in-hand. The issue ultimately boils down, as it does in so many other places, to public vigilance about business influence on government. In other words, the onus is on us as participants in a democratic government not only to restore public media, but also to ensure its integrity once restored. It's what democracy is all about! (Of course that depends upon supporting public media in the first place!)
Click to expand...

I think the idea of a truly exceptional, editorially neutral government-funded American broadcaster would be much more realistic if one were already embedded within our society the way the BBC is in the UK. The BBC hasn't exactly been free of controversy and questions of its neutrality, to be sure, but it's such a cultural institution in Britain that I don't think anyone could ever get away with significantly meddling with it.

I think we're far past the point where that's realistic in the U.S., unfortunately.
 
C

codhand

Member
empty vessel said:
You are being so cryptic that I don't even know what you are trying to argue. That NPR is public radio? It isn't. It gets public subsidies, but most of its funding is private. It used to be almost entirely publicly funded--what it means to be "public"--before business interests killed it.
Click to expand...

NPR just create content, they also dropped the word "Public" from their name.

You're saying "public radio" is a misnomer, I'm OK to agree, but public radio exists as long as any money for it comes from the government. If money doesn't come from the government it can refer to a "community radio" station as an example. It just so happens that now "public radio" means you raise money from other sources in addition to government funding.

I'd love for public radio to be 100% government funded.

As long as we have radio, with some portion of its funds derived from the government, operating as public service, broadcasting content publicly, with no commercials, we have public radio. Unless you have a different name for it I can use.

EDIT ok, you do.
empty vessel said:
I would call them non-profit private media.
Click to expand...

yikes, doesnt exactly roll off the tongue.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
WayneMorse said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/keystone-xl-pipeline-report_n_4704388.htmL

Don't do it...

please don't do it.

obama stahp.
Click to expand...

I keep predicting that he is going to approve it. But I gotta say, I didn't think he would drag it out as long as he has. At this point, he'll just say "Well, the oil is going to get out no matter what and in view of these train derailments, explosions, and spills, we might as well do it with a pipeline that will be safer.

The only thing he really has control over is the border crossing. Eventually we could just end up with two pipelines linked by a railroad connection across the border. So what is the point?

As my avatar would indicate, I'm not fan of oil. But I don't think stopping the pipeline is an effective technique. I think he should horse-trade the pipeline approval for something like extending the EV incentives, renewing the wind PTC, or some other green initiative.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
BertramCooper said:
On a semi-related note to the above discussion, I wonder how many Americans are aware of the existence of Voice of America.
Click to expand...

Very few, I assume, given that it has been prohibited from being broadcast in the US because it is official propaganda (an organ of first the War Department and then the State Department). Apparently the prohibition on domestic dissemination changed in 2013. I know that there are assertions that firewalls exist to promote journalistic integrity and objectivity within VOA (and entities like it), but I don't know much about its structure and am personally highly skeptical and loathe to count this as public media given its original intent. As I understand it, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (which oversees these foreign disseminations) has a much larger budget than the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That sadly doesn't surprise me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom