j_b

depends on whose deciding what's fit for society... and what's their definition of "fit" is. so, you don't think that having greater diversity in media ownership would be a good thing? Do you really expect that decent news coverage is likely to result from a few media conglomerates that tend to use the word 'socialize' a lot to describe any attempt at slowing corporate consolidation because of the way it affects our lives (in this case wheter we are trully informed).

Your talking points are rightwing. The etymologie of the word is: 1828, "to render social," from social (adj.). Meaning "to be sociable, to mingle" is recorded from 1895. Socialization "process of making social" is from 1840. Sounds like a good thing, right? But in corporate speak it means something entirely different that is bad. What does it mean? How is it bad to 'make things fit for social purpose'?

"socialize" is the key word here folks. Every time someone notes that "free market" in practice means corporate consolidation into a few conglomerates that control more of everything (in this case what 'news' we see), the rightwing implies that the unstated premise is to "socialize". 'Socialize' means 'make fit for social purpose', which is actually a good thing. What do pink and his rightwing friends mean by "socialize"?

what we need is more diverse ownership of media: 30 years ago, the media industry contained over 50 independent companies (tv, radio, newspapers). Today, there are 5 corporate conglomerates that control more that 80% of all the media sales. The "free" market leads to olygopolies in media like in all other industries.

I wish you were right but so far only one advertiser is pulling out entirely (and temporarily) from FOX. All others ask to switch their advertising to other shows. FOX is first a propaganda machine and Murdoch (News Corp CEO and owner) stands to lose a lot more money from a more regulated environnment that'd come from a successful reform movement than temporarily losing some advertising because his goons offend thinking people. They pretty much always show their stupidity anyway and this time people noticed only because Beck smeared Obama.

Don't count on getting good weather in October in Chamonix. The town is relatively quiet at that time of the year. I'd leave the ice gear at home and plan on rock climbing. Since you're travelling alone you probably ought to stick with better known places to find a partner.

According to reports there was violence throughout the event. While Hells Angels provided stage security, a number of them were out of control (driving through the crowd, beating up people rushing the stage, ..). I am not so sure it'd have been a good idea to interfere.

It's not about ratings, it's about energizing the wingnut base to give the appearance of legitimacy to corporate astroturf organizing against reforms and about scaring seniors who are well known to fall prey to fear-mongering. News Corp (owns FOX, WSJ, NYPost, and much more) is the employer of half the speakers (mostly TV talking heads and 'journalists') involved in the latest conference on online astroturf organizing. As your article says, to avoid bad publicity, advertisers simply changed programs but keep advertising on FOX. These advertisers are often part of the 100 corps that were on a memo, leaked out about a year ago at ABC, calling for a blackout-no advertising on Air America (progressive radio).

Wicked. It looks out of shape to me. Conditions should be better in the fall.

The major unstated premise here seems to be that, even under conditions of open competition, profits can only be realized by cheating consumers. i think you read way too much into the question. i meant it quite literally, with no hidden motives. His own unstated premise is that society can afford significant profit to be skimmed off healthcare. Healthcare's benefits to us (including our economy) are much greater by making people healthy than by padding the bank accounts of a few.

Guide to Corporate Astroturfing: Lobbyist-Run Groups Orchestrating

when was the last time that the corporate media paid that much attention to demonstrators? (I mean besides the recent tea-parties that also happened to be the product of corporate astroturf organizing) Certainly not when there were millions in the streets to denounce the war of aggression on Iraq or any other time that some people protested the policies decided in Washington. in the same vein, be ready for the new astroturf organizing: Leaked email reveals that American Petroleum Institute is planning a series of rallies to protest against Waxman-Markey bill

Woodstock was the product of counter culture that was co-opted to become the mass culture of today. When was the last time commercial culture created anything new?

I don't. Looking at Justin Thibault's (Choada Boy) continual attack posts that never have any logic, address the issue or are on topic, I just figured he must be too stupid to formulate thoughts of his own which make sense and are well argued and on topic and perhaps he's just plain mentally fucked up so this is his plea for attention. In either case, I decided to ignore him like most others on this site. Regards as if FW and other neanderthals here addressed issues or showed logic. You could show the decency of staying out of this if you aren't going to advocate "ignoring" them like you advertise ignoring choada boy.

when people like FW, who condone every freedom-slaying measure taken by Bushco and every conservative coup d'etat like recently in Honduras, gargarize continuously about "freedom", i feel nauseous to my stomach. Why don't you advocate giving people jobs and paying people a living wage instead of whining about providing healthcare to those who can't afford the bloated cost of insurance.

as if that wasn't predictable that catering to conservatives that drove the nation's economy under (and I am not just talking about the casino economy but the real economy) and committed trillions to military adventurism would lead to the Democrats losing credibility with those that voted for them and are consistently on their left on most issues. I mean, when does it become a legitimate question to ask whether everything is going according to plan?

Right, as if there would be no consequences for not delivering what they promised (those that did). This betrayal of representative democracy may well continue but for how long and at what expense?

It's not a matter of ethics but what aspect of climbing one choses to place emphasis on. It personally bothers me much less to hang, finish the climb (or not) and walk away than rehearsing/inspecting until I can lead something cleanly. Onsighting is always the goal but for me worrying too much about style gets in the way of enjoying moving on the rock and on to another pitch/peak. My guess is that climbing more different rocks will improve your onsighting ability more than red-pointing a smaller number of climbs.

They know that medicare works. They know that 1/3-1/4 of them have very poor to non-existent access to healthcare, which is an excellent way to lose everything they have if a serious illness occurs in the family. They know that single-payer/mixed systems work much better (not even close) in all other advanced nations. They are supporting taking healthcare away from the profiteers: [video:youtube]ICDKY5CwexA

I wonder if more people understood the idea of not-for-profit insurance co-ops, as Conrad is pushing, that the public support for the "public option" would dwindle further. Sure, give it a few more month of propaganda by the corporate media and betrayal by elected officials, and the public option will have less than 50% approval. Between the continual fear-mongering ("Obama is a commie vampire who will send the elderly to the gas chamber"), the lack of discussing single-payer healthcare, and constant mouthing of conservative talking points, what do you expect people to do? Think they are being manipulated by elites into doing what's not good for them?

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on "Fox News Sunday." "There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort." - Washington Post which plainly shows that senate critters are out of touch with the people who elected them, on this issue as well as many others. Americans are consistantly to the left of their elected officials on most issues and it won't be any other other way as long as the corporate media decides who is electable.

For the jackasses like FW who are steeped in a make believe world and pretend there isn't a large majority of americans for a public option: NBC/WSJ poll: 76% feel that it is quite to extremely important to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/090617_NBC-WSJ_poll_Full.pdf CBS/NYT poll: A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml EBRI poll: 83% support a public option http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062515/new-poll-shows-tremendous-support-public-health-care-option even a GOP poll found that 66% want a public option available: http://washingtonindependent.com/48140/gop-poll-yes-people-want-a-public-option and many more ...

Risk of being voted out for those who wouldn't get their typical financing from the healthcare lobby. For the rest, >65% of americans still want a public option, and Democrats (including Obama) may well run the risk of being voted out for selling out their constituencies down the river.

Well written article with lots of salient points but the conclusions are garbled, which perhaps explains your take on it. The situation described is a thorough indictment of for profit healthcare when doctors try first to max out the money they can make out of their business (I can already hear the “what’s wrong with maximizing profit”). In many ways, healthcare has become not very different than any other sector of the “free market” economy where every service/goods provider is expected to place making as much money as possible at the expense of everything else, including if it means providing services that aren't needed. Everything in this piece apart form the declared lesson to be learned is argumentation for taking healthcare out of the profit making loop.

My guess (I used to have a home alarm service for about 15 years) is that 99% of the effectiveness of home alarm systems is due to having official looking stickers on your windows indicating that you have an alarm system service. Having the system itself is likely not necessary and it's a pain if you have pets and/or kids, or even wildlife.