Jim

Can't say I ever considered sleeping up there but, heck, why not? Can't go without wine! Excellent trip and photos. Thanks.

This is where the libertarian argument gets silly. Having a simple requirement to get vaccinated elimates the lawyer feeding frenzy. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad - you're out voted in a civilized society. Regarding WA pensions, we're not so bad actually: "First and foremost, all of Washington's ongoing pension systems are healthy and well funded, in fact they are among the best funded pension systems in the country," Treasurer Jim McIntire said in a statement. "But funding for two pension plans that were closed in 1977 - PERS1 and TRS 1 - pose large issues that can no longer be avoided...Over time, it has been easy for lawmakers of both parties to postpone payments to these funds in the face of tough budget decisions. We now face the consequences of those past deferrals." The ones that face issues are about 77% funded and something will need to change there - but not so much given that the folks receiving these benefits are dying off. The system for current employees is different and solvent for the foreseeable future. Your argument regarding some benefits has more merit.

I really enjoy these conversations when they take new and unpredictable turns.

There you go again. Straw-dogging it. The general goal, was, and it worked moderately well, to get broad community viewpoints and news out to the community by using the public interest portion of the license provided by said public. Conservative, liberal, and middle all had access. Common sense tells you that some screening would be required to keep nut-jobs off; and yes, that would actually take some vetting and thinking - what a concept. What we have now is one voice - that of money.

If that 5 paragraph note on the website is your example of widely disminated news, well then... And half of the article was about how Israel denied it was true. Likely this was on page B4 of the hard copy and not their leading story on the webversion. A more applicable example would be: during the day this news broke, which story got more attention - this or Tiger's divorce proceedings?

"Waiting for Superman." If the compromise is swimming in the shallow edge of the cesspool rather than the middle it's a choice I would prefer to avoid. I'll go with ethics, conviction, and someone with a spine, thank you.

As usual you're making the straw dog argument that the choice has to be unfettered markets or a politburo of media. Coherent folks understand that there is a reasonable medium. We're always making choices on how markets work - either through regulation or tax policy. It's just a matter of what type of behavior is encouraged by these parameters. Your example of ethanol is a good one - horrible energy policy, great for Iowa and their senators. Our tax policy currently provides 30 times the benefits to fossil fuel exploration and production than renewable energy. That's a choice that benefits the old fuel network and their corporate structure, but harm as a nation regarding a sustainable future and contributes to greenhouse gas production. Regading a perfect media world. Wrong framework to start, but here's and example of how things have changed. Under FCC rules televsion stations are required, as part of their license, to provide benefits to their community. This was more broadly enforced in the past (maybe you're too young to remember) when stations were required to provide a certain portion of their air-time to public affairs, local political debates for free, and citizens could and did apply for several minute long opinion spots. Somehow the public benefit clause has now come to mean participating in the Walk for whatever disease of the moment, or sending the weatherman to the local schools. Anything but freeing up valuable commercial air time. I think similar requirements for TV including cable channels would be beneficial. Before you start going in the weeds, no, the Food Channel could be exempt. And yes, some decisions would need to be made. Right now there are few choices. The media is dominated by moneyed interests. Even if you're working for the NYT and you're a young reporter, if you stray off the centerline to much you will be put on notice. And if you want a career then you don't rock the boat. I think JB's example is a good one. Why wasn't there a peep from the US media on the UN report on the Israeli boarding, and executions, of those protestors? The right-wing dominated media doesn't want to put out that message; and the center media was scared to death of the shite storm and loss of advertisement revenue. Is that in the public interest? I guess you can argue, in some twisted logic, that it is because folks would otherwise boycott these supporting companies.

summary: The market will figure it out.

Seriously. There several problems with this report; first it is way too long to get on network news - can you say all that stuff in like 30 seconds. Second - there's no opposing opinion - this is, like, one guys opinion and it's not fair to let him have all that air time to himself. Third - there's no chicks. Fourth - what do you think would really happen if this got aired? Holy cow - shite storm, full media blitz by the JDL and their PR folks, pressure on corporate sponsers to pull out of advertisements.

I typed "processed chicken" into Snoops.com and this came up: http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.asp

I should have had some coffee before looking at this.

Ok then. My apolgies for the broader interpretation. Regarding free press. First, I do really believe it's an issue of democracy. The reduction in organizations that actually report on news, well news of any depth and sophistication; and that requires real investigative reporting is a problem. Aside from being replaced by info-tainment the growth of corporate media "news", of which Fox is one example, are just saturating the airways with lies and more lies. Yes, the populace doesn't seem to be inclined do much research these days but if there were more available media I believe it would make a difference. The commercial media - I don't know what if any resolution there is for that. Regading political advertisement - the avalanche of money is having a similar effect. I would prefer disclosure leglistation - and public funding of elections - which in the current climate are both doubtful. When I speak with my representatives on my two yearly visits (ok, their aids) I bring this up as an imortant constituent concern (ok, mine). I do donate to Media Matters as a hope that some information dispersal is useful. Has any of this been effective? Not so given the grand scheme of things. Will I toss it overboard as part of the stuff I do. I doubt it. I guess we could come to the conclusion that the populace gets the government they deserve, sometimes I think that. But it gets a bit depressing.

Oh. Well, I am in mid-50s.

Agreed. I would discuss where my energy goes outside my professinal life over a beer - but, really, don't need to trail bread crumbs of my life over the interwebs. Bike park?

No worries, I've already done your homework for you, and decided not to donate to FreePress.net due to its lack of serious lobbying or legal capability. I can get more bang for the buck elsewhere on those the very same issues it's focused on. That decision had nothing to do with a few wallflowers whining on the innernutz, either. Maybe, just maybe folks don't feel the need to list their resume on the web as you do. You can take that as a non-answer - who cares. Just keep telling us how much your work matters - though no one ever asked nor did anyone disparage your efforts.

Thanks. As soon as the doors open after lunch for the Judgement Room we'll enter in proper prostrate position.

I don't really give a hoot what organizations that someone puts their time and energy into whether it's trying to get kids grade points up, working on their community's plans, or working phone banks while juggling their kids schedule. Just do something - anything - that contributes to your community in a manner that matches your convictions. What turns me off is holy-than-thou attitudes.

Ineffective dweeb.

No. But the size of something else is obvious.

Actually, no. No one in the post asked for your extensive resume. You insinuated what others were doing needed your assessment of their effectiveness. Great - you're working for the ACLU, we're estatic for you. Wish others were doing the same. I don't feel the need to get into a "mine is bigger than yours discussion". But here. I found an extra chair for your ego.

Like wise dude. I'm sure you've personally assisted in moving the Gibralter of democracy further to the left while deriding the efforts of us who manage to lobby and volunteer while holding down a job and family responsibilities. Do you want a step ladder to assist in the dismount off that horse? Back to work for me. But thanks. I feel inspired now that I know you're there working for us.

Last week regressive, this week progressive. Can't seem to please anyone.

Obviously a hot button issue for you. Your opinion seems to be that with our current state of open media that there's no reason to be concerned of the continued trend of corporate money dominiating all sorts of media. I never accused anyone of jumping in the rightwing cesspoll. Just that I consider this opinion niave at best. And your insinuation that I'm just a whiner and not doing anyting else. Well, I don't need to show you my resume - . You can tell us how wonderfully effective your lobbying efforts have been. And I want charts.

You don't want to go there, really. I'll put up the amount of time I spend in my Senators' offices and in my Congressman's office,and working with NGOs with anyone who has a day job. But - after careful consideration I've decided the only thing that matters is having a broadband connection to keep a well-informed citizenry.

....and ignore the ramifications of recent court decisions regarding "free speech" (read $$$$)and lack of correcting action by legislators.