I've seen plenty examples of England being referred to as feminine as well, though back then people used "England" and "Britain" interchangeably.
I've seen plenty examples of England being referred to as feminine as well, though back then people used "England" and "Britain" interchangeably.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
They are now offering to send you a certificate stating as much. Free, but after you put the order through it asks for a donation and to upgrade the framing.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/conte...ertificate?key
a WTF moment for my sister's mailbox in 6-8 weeksMy daughter would probably be thrilled by such a thing.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Funny phrase to use -- kicking the can forward. Because that's what this bill will do for the fiscal solvency of the states.
He was criticized by the extreme left for that. Most independent voters feel he's simply walked away from his inflated campaign talk of bipartisanship. Arguably it was an overpromise from the start.That consensus building, bipartisan efforts, and social contract with the people is what Obama was criticized for. Make up your mind. It could have been 'rammed through' much earlier, if it weren't for all that time spent negotiating with Republicans who, in the end, didn't really want to negotiate. And now the Republicans are saying they will purposely obstruct. Where's your umbrage toward bare-knuckled minority dirty tricks, using the process to impede?
I know folks in Europe like to hear about the crazy things that Fox news does, but it's simply a fraction of the media market. I'm talking about softer biases, like calling it "health care reform" instead of "health care legislation". I'm talking about national newspaper editors who in 2004 pushed hang-wringing articles about how Bush was ramming through legislation, who now don't complain about it.
If you work in media, you know the soft bias is always there. Reporters are very self-conscious about it, but also caught up in a certain set of social expectations. It's a constant pull in different directions.
Back in October of 2009 I went to a panel discussion with the Washington bureau chief of the NYTimes, a Washington beat reporter for the Wall Street Journal, a former Washington Post reporter, a Pro-Publica editor and a former Bush lawyer. The room was also packed with a number of reporters from across the spectrum.
The conversation was explicitly about media bias and it had a good spread of views. Back then it looked like this health care bill had really been killed by a populist revolt, and the main gist of the discussion was that the media was too soft on the "health care reform" agenda and found itself blindsided by opinion blogs, research blogs and other new media that asked critical questions (and organized critical mobs) that most major media outlets refused to ask.
Mind you, this wasn't liberal reporters groveling on the ground asking for forgiveness for their sins. It was a frank discussion about how reporters can do a disservice in subtle ways ("sins of omission"), but with new technology find their ability to be on top of a story diminished by new media.
Thank you for the lesson in the bleeding obvious, I am however aware of soft bias as well. I never said there wasn't media biased towards this bill, what you said however, "the media let them off more easy" is still arsegravy, seeing that Fox is a big chunk of that media and tried their damndest to make up for it sixfold. Again, I didn't see the media rallying protests back in the Bush days. Fox might be a fraction, but it's a pretty big fraction. At least, so they and Lewk keep boasting. And figures support it.
And do you want me to find quotes about how Obama is ramming health care legislation down people's throat?
You can still convince me if: "Can you show me left wing media rallying it's viewers to attend anti-bush protests as blatantly as Fox has done?"
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235605Now that health care reform has passed, the focus is moving on to implementation. It is a huge undertaking that aims to reshape a significant chunk of the U.S. economy. Setting up this public-private partnership will require creating new infrastructure, managing a lot of moving parts, and dealing with powerful corporations and industry blocs. So who should President Obama appoint to be his health care reform implementation czar?
He could choose from several approaches. He could hire a consulting firm like McKinsey & Co. or restructuring specialists like Zolfo Cooper. He could name a Washington veteran, such as former Sens. Bob Dole or Tom Daschle. Or he could find one person with a unique combination of experience and skills to carry it off. (Hint: It's not Ira Magaziner).
As I see it, there are three principal requirements for the job. The first is experience in management, business, and organization: maybe someone who's worked as a management consultant, an entrepreneur, and an executive in both the public and private sectors. The second is the ability and capacity to commit: someone who isn't likely to have any pressing obligations for the next several years, and who has enough cash that he or she doesn't need a large private-sector salary. Third is relevant experience in implementing a large-scale health-care reform program, ideally one that involved using an individual mandate and the private insurance system to attain near-universal health insurance.
In other words, this sounds like a job for Mitt Romney. He may be the only man in America who meets all three criteria.
Consider his bio. Romney has worked as a management consultant, started a successful venture capital firm (Bain & Co.), restructured and turned around the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, and ran the state of Massachusetts for four years.
Will he have the time? Well, Romney is clearly running for president in 2012. But let's be honest. Romney looks good on paper, but he is a poor campaigner. His 2008 campaign wasn't quite as pathetic as Rudy Giuliani's. But it was disappointing. Over the course of a year, Romney raised a lot of money and matched it with lots of his own. He did win several caucuses, but they were mostly in states with large Mormon populations, or states in the Republican kill zone of New England, or states where his dad used to be governor (Michigan). He came in third in the delegate count.
Can he do better in two years? The emergence of Sarah Palin and continuing shifts in the Republican Party would seem to make it harder for Romney to win in 2012 than in 2008. Romney is an establishment, big-business kind of guy who played a social moderate when he ran Massachusetts. And in the past two years, the Republican Party has become more anti-establishment, more hostile to big business, and more hostile to social moderates. To ingratiate himself with the base, which generally shunned him in 2008, Romney has been tacking harder to the right—which will make it difficult for him to attract the centrists any winning candidate needs. After the passage of the health care reform bill, Romney took to the pages of the National Review and all but accused Obama and the Democrats of committing treason for passing a health care reform plan.
And of course, there is the thing that disqualifies him from being the Republican nominee in 2012, which is the same thing that makes him best qualified for the job of health-care czar: He's basically already done it. In fact, he's the only executive who has done it. As countless commentators have noted (Alex Knepper from the right, Brad DeLong from the left, and David Frum from the spurned right), Obamacare largely is Romneycare. The concept of attaining near-universal health insurance in a defined geographic area using a combination of a mandate, subsidies, and cost-control efforts is essentially what Romney did in Massachusetts earlier this decade.
In 2008, Romney tied himself in knots trying to explain away positions he took while operating in the political context of Massachusetts. Trying to appeal to the GOP's national base led him to flip-flop on issues like abortion and immigration. If he runs in 2012, he'll have to explain why he implemented and repeatedly defended a program that is eerily similar to Obamacare.
It's early yet—Super Tuesday 2012 is almost two years away—and the political dynamics will change. It's entirely possible that Romney will have a future in national Republican electoral politics. But if he's looking for a surefire way to serve his country through 2016, he might consider sending his résumé to the White House.
Interesting idea. Not that it would ever happen, of course.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
That term carries 'bias', too. I've been talking about it for years -- they should call it Health Insurance legislation -- and stop referring to Insurance as Care. Could also call our system Illness Care, it's not based on health/wellness and disease prevention. We need patient reform for medical access, delivery, affordability, and outcome; provider reform in administration, redundancy, waste and fraud. We need to change the insurance monopoly, not make it bigger.I'm talking about softer biases, like calling it "health care reform" instead of "health care legislation"
Aw, poor media, blindsided by new technology? Can't get the facts out and compete with blogs? Can't address the serious issues like new media can? BSMaybe they were too busy trying to keep their print papers from going bankrupt, focused on their own business model profits instead of our health system. Maybe they took the cable news approach with sound bytes and slogans, assuming everyone has the attention span of a gnat. Or covering the political posturing instead of the nuts 'n bolts consumers want. Talk about bias.
Don't overlook the power of Fox news, Limbaugh and other conservative tv/radio programs. May be a small market share by numbers, but not in its reach, spreading via social networks. Politicians willing to get on the bandwagon for free publicity? As Frum noted, the RNC learned late that it works for Fox news, not the other way around. oops
Mitt Romney is a terrible person though.
. . .
I'm not getting into a debate about Fox -- it's a network with both news shows and commentators and it's only a fraction of the media market. And it's particular behavior doesn't somehow provide air cover for a more wide spread and subtle bad behavior by the rest of the media.
Romney is pro-business. That's why Romneycare was a huge gift to the insurance industry. I think his only objection to this bill is the federal mandate, but it's okay for states to mandate.
In case you haven't noticed, without a public option this bill is a huge gift to the insurance industry.Romney is pro-business. That's why Romneycare was a huge gift to the insurance industry. I think his only objection to this bill is the federal mandate, but it's okay for states to mandate.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
If you've followed this debate, you'd know that's been my objection, pre-dating the new bill. I've been wanting to separate health/illness care from employment and insurance for quite a while.
You don't have to go into a debate about Fox. It's not about Fox. Yes they have both news shows and commentators, but 90+% of them have quite the right wing bias. But I hope I don't have to convince you of that. I have seen the unbiased way Fox handles the News. "Is Obama's Healthcare Bill destroying America?"
It's about you looking only to one part of the media, the left wing part, and ignoring a large chunk of not only Fox, but also opinion pieces from the Economist, Washington post who've not been kind to this, and saying the media as a whole are giving the democrats an easier ride.
Because that's bottywater. Climb of the cross, stop playing the martyred victim please. It's just as unsettling as when the left does it.
This: "the media let the Democrats off much easier on the procedural and structural issues behind this bill." is cheese and does make you sound like the conspiratorial wingnut. And it doesn't suit you, and I'm getting mad at you because you are smarter than that.
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 03-30-2010 at 01:15 PM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I consider the Washington Post and WSJ on the conservative side. Most any pro-business publication (Business Weekly, Forbes, Investor's Daily etc) have done a pretty good job of making it sound like armageddon, the death of capitali$m, sssssocialized medicine, guv'ment takeover.
Coming from the same people who finagled the private-profit, public-loss for the financial industry, is it any wonder that people are pissed off?
I'm mad at Dread too because he used to be this smart, caring, middle of the road, thinking dude and now he's cut his own heart out and replaced it with a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL! Or something.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I hate Obama for pushing him to the dark side.
Lets hope Palin wins 2012. We need drastic measures here!
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
What? To save Dread? Burn the village to save a villager, eh? No, better to cast Dread into the abyss.I hate Obama for pushing him to the dark side.
Lets hope Palin wins 2012. We need drastic measures here!
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Anyone remember that research piece that showed that when you try to convince certain types of people of certain things, they only retreat further into their own believes (no matter how insane they might be)?
Yeah, someone send that to Dread. He keeps blaming his new attitude on his friends, he needs something to help him figure out he needs new friends.
His "quality of news" ramblings would make Lewk proud!
Yeah, I heard/read something about that. When faced with factual information, plain and simple evidence, about Saddam Hussein not being connected to Osama Bin, many people refused to believe it, clung to the opposite. Its a subset of that human phenomenon of seeking out news/commentary that already agrees with you and rejecting that which doesn't.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
"That was excellently observed, say I, when I read a Passage in an Author where his Opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken." [Satires and Personal Writings]
- Jonathan Swift
Hope is the denial of reality
You should have quoted the other one, about the study that come to Swift's same conclusion but with empirical evidence. And you've become more evil too, btw.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
I experienced it first hand today at a hearing; somebody who's angry about a decision because it says something different than what he expected on the basis of what he read online. The thing was; what he read online applied to people living in the Netherlands. The person in question is living in France. On the website there is a separate section for people living outside of the Netherlands which does contain links that explain in great detail how things work in his case. When I pointed out to him that he could have understood that for information that was relevant to him he should have looked in the right place (the international section) he became angry and snapped that we had mis-informed him.
Congratulations America
The Republicans really are acting like crazy extremists over this.It had been rumored for a week and on Tuesday some State House Republicans made it official.
Thirty of them signed onto HR 1886, a House Resolution calling for the impeachment of Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker.
"The Attorney General has an obligation to file suit when requested to do so by the Governor," said Rep. Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross), who authored the measure and submitted it to the House on Tuesday.
Hatfield and his 29 GOP allies want Baker removed from office because they claim he violated the Georgia Constitution.
Specifically, Article V, Section III which says, "The Attorney General...shall represent the state...when required by the Governor."
Hatfield believes Baker went against that clause when he refused Governor Sonny Perdue's request last week to join 14 other states in suing over the new federal health care act.
But not all House Republicans in the GOP controlled legislature agree with the impeachment move.
"I think it's important that the Attorney General recognize that his client is not the Obama Administration. His client is the people of Georgia," House Speaker Rep. David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge) told 11Alive News.
But while Speaker Ralston agrees with a lawsuit against the federal plan, he does not see Baker's impeachment as the pressing issue.
"I want to move us toward giving the people of Georgia the relief from this federal monstrosity that they deserve and I'm not sure that's the proper way to do it," Ralston said.
Republican Governor Sonny Perdue is moving ahead with plans to go around Attorney General Baker and sue with an outside attorney.
The Governor would not have a role in any impeachment proceedings, but he thinks it would be a waste of time for a legislature that has only 9 days left in this year's session.
"I think we've got a lot of important work to do from the budget and other issues in the legislature prior to taking that up," Perdue said.
The impeachment resolution would only need a simple majority to pass the State House, but Republicans might still have trouble finding enough votes in their own ranks.
If they do pass it, Baker would then face a trial in the State Senate.
But removal from office would require a two-thirds majority, meaning some Democratic Senators would have to go along, which isn't likely.
Attorney General Baker told 11Alive News on Tuesday that he stands by his decision not to sue over federal health care.
He still insists it would be a lost cause that the cash-strapped state budget couldn't stand.
Baker says the legislature should concentrate on more important issues.
"It's disappointing to see us spending time and effort on a matter like this when we've got to figure out how to fix the roads in this state, when we've got to figure out how to put people back to work, when we've got to figure out how to balance the budget for education," Baker added.
Baker's term as Attorney General ends at the end of the year anyway since he's a Democratic candidate for Governor.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
When is it no longer an act?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
When all of them turn into nutjobs instead of only some
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
I'm not sure if it's a language issue, but I wrote a medium sized blurb a few posts up clarifying what I was talking about when I mention media bias. I consider it fairly thoughtful, if rushed, but based on my personal experience with members of the media. You ignored it, choosing instead to pigeonhole me as some kind of Fox "fair and balanced against the librul media" firestorm.
I don't watch Fox. I don't even own a TV. Stop pigeonholing me.
I wrote a medium sized blurb a few posts up clarifying what I was talking about when I mention media bias. I consider it fairly thoughtful, if rushed, but based on my personal experience with members of the media. You ignored it, choosing instead to pigeonhole me as some kind of Fox "fair and balanced against the librul media" firestorm.
I don't watch Fox. I don't even own a TV. Stop pigeonholing me.
And stop with this nonsense that I'm less thoughtful because I changed my views in a direction that disagrees with yours.
I never said Hussein had any ties with Bin Laden at all. You're pigeonholing again.
No, you were trying to give me a lecture about what soft bias was. You didn't have to. It was completely besides the point. You went into how reporters and journalists recognise this soft bias. Well whooptiefuckingdoo. The point that is lost on you is that you love to nail you and your side to a cross that is labeled "The mean media is mean to us". Well guess what sunshine, the mean media is mean to anyone. I was trying to show you that if you would just be arsed to turn your head you would see a whole different slant on a different part of the media OUTSIDE OF FUCKING FOX.
No I fucking did not. This martyr complex. It has to stop. I ignored a lot of that redundancy because this is not about the definition, use and way in which bias profiles itself, it's about your erroneous statement that the Democrats are somehow cuddled by the media over the healthcare bill. And if you say incredible nonsense like this, I am wondering: in what dimension?You ignored it, choosing instead to pigeonhole me as some kind of Fox "fair and balanced against the librul media" firestorm.
And I have to admire the way in which you throw this in my shoes while clearly ignoring the point I make in favour of going "Stop pigeonholing me". What is this? The new holy grail of discussion? Damn, I need an argument here ... hey I know!
Stop crucifying yourself. It's embarrassing.I don't watch Fox. I don't even own a TV. Stop pigeonholing me.
This is what I said:
You don't have to go into a debate about Fox. It's not about Fox. Yes they have both news shows and commentators, but 90+% of them have quite the right wing bias. But I hope I don't have to convince you of that. I have seen the unbiased way Fox handles the News. "Is Obama's Healthcare Bill destroying America?"
I added the second bit because of your, again quite gullible statement: "They have news and opinion"
It's about you looking only to one part of the media, the left wing part, and ignoring a large chunk of not only Fox, but also opinion pieces from the Economist, Washington post who've not been kind to this, and saying the media as a whole are giving the democrats an easier ride.
Goddamnit this is pissing me off
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Please explain this, as it seems beyond what you said before. Yes, the Washington Post hired Sarah Palin as a columnist. Great. I'm talking about the New York Times, CNNs, Sarasota Herald Tribunes, San Francisco Chronicles, LATimes, Chicago Tribune and all the major (remaining) national papers and networks in America who contributed to this soft bias. I'm actually the one thinking of the big picture, you're the one who brought up Fox when it's really the extreme exception that proves the rule.
I'm just mourning the world's loss of a good mind and a good soul...Obi-wan must have felt like this....
(btw - I'm mostly just joshin' you. Yes, you've taken a hard right in the last few years. Yes, its mystifying, but wtf? It happens.) for the record, I never said anything about Fox or Rush vis a vis you. You may have gone right, but you're not stupid.
That comment had nothing to do with you from my POV. Just talking about some research I recalled reading about.I never said Hussein had any ties with Bin Laden at all. You're pigeonholing again.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Dread is taking this way too personally. He works in PR and deals with the media, but I didn't expect this reaction. What's up with that?
Go ahead, be crucified, see if I care
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 03-31-2010 at 03:29 PM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote