http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020347-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020347-503544.html)
QuoteJuan Williams Firing Leads Palin, Huckabee to Call for Defunding NPR
Not their finest moment.
QuoteSchiller also responded to claims that firing Williams amounted to censorship since "NPR is funded with public funds."
"There's a misperception about federal funding and public radio," Schiller said. "NPR gets no allocation from CPB. Zero." CPB is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a semi-private non-profit corporation that promotes public broadcasting through federal funding
Schiller continued: "We are a private 501(c)3. We've had journalists call up and ask what department of the government we report to. That's laughable. Have you listened to our shows? We do apply for competitive grants from the likes of the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation. As a result, some money from CPB does come to us when we win grants. Depending on the year, it represents just one to three percent of our total budget."
"There's so much misinformation on the blogosphere, it's nuts," Schiller added
Quote from: Townsend on October 21, 2010, 02:48:24 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020347-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020347-503544.html)
Not their finest moment.
Amazing, considering Palin has actually said that she does read 'everything'.
Waiting for Gweed to come out and defend his 'damsel in distress'. LOL.
She's crossed over into the 'multiple hour' territory now. Forget minutes.
Quote from: Townsend on October 21, 2010, 02:48:24 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020347-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020347-503544.html)
Not their finest moment.
Apparently John Boehner and Newt Gingrich, two with specific knowledge of what the federal government funds, are likewise not having their finest moment either.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/125225-in-wake-of-williams-firing-republicans-want-npr-funding-examined
Also, Schiller's position is over the top suspect. Here is an article that addresses some of the indirect federal funds NPR receives.
QuoteTake the local NPR affiliate in Washington, WAMU 88.5. That station paid NPR in excess of $1.5 million in dues, the station's largest single expense outside of fundraising and personnel. The station also took in $840,000 in public funding and grants from the CPB. The station spent nearly $4 million on "fund-raising and membership development," with a return of just $6 million. Fundraising is expensive -- public money isn't.
As this former CPB official explained, "they like to contend they get little direct money, but they get a hell of a lot of indirect money." He also notes that the FM spectrum on which public radio stations broadcast is itself a government subsidy -- a valuable public resource provided by the government at no expense to the stations. "The importance of federal funding to their operations can be seen," our friend said, "whenever someone threatens to cut the CPB budget -- and they scream like a bunch of stuck pigs."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/npr_responds.asp
And then there's this little gem from Schiller:
Quote"I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark."
That follows, as you'll see below, her comment earlier today that now-former NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/21/130728202/npr-ceo-williams-views-of-muslims-should-stay-between-himself-and-his-psychiatrist
Whoops!
QuoteApparently John Boehner and Newt Gingrich, two with specific knowledge of what the federal government funds, are likewise not having their finest moment either.
Correct, they're not.
QuoteAlso, Schiller's position is over the top suspect. Here is an article that addresses some of the indirect federal funds NPR receives.
It doesn't say jack.
QuoteAnd then there's this little gem from Schiller:http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/21/130728202/npr-ceo-williams-views-of-muslims-should-stay-between-himself-and-his-psychiatrist
It should've. Per the article, they've had to mess with his crap over and over. He was an excellent contributor to NPR but he was fired for continually saying Fox news stuff to make Big Daddy O'Reilly like him.
Quote from: Townsend on October 21, 2010, 04:56:21 PM
It doesn't say jack.
It sure as scat said "jack". In fact, the "jack" was corroborated by the source of your original posting. This article takes on Schiller's dubious assertion that NPR takes no federal money:
Quote"NPR gets no allocation from CPB," Schiller said. "Zero. We are a private 501(c)3. We've had journalists call up and ask what department of the government we report to. That's laughable."
There appears to be something of a hole in her argument, however: If the CPB sends most of its money to member stations, and the member stations pay dues to NPR, doesn't NPR still end up getting taxpayer money via member stations, in addition to the one to three percent it gets via grants?
Hotsheet contacted Anna Christopher, senior manager of media relations at NPR, to address that question. She acknowledged that "a proportion of every station's budget goes to pay NPR dues." That means, she said, that "there is an indirect amount coming in" via member station dues.
That amount doesn't appear to be huge, however: According to Christopher, roughly ten percent of member stations' budget comes from the federal government. Forty percent of NPR's budget, in turn, comes from station fees. So the percentage of NPR's budget that is made up of federal money coming via station fees would be relatively small.
Where does that leave NPR? If you add up the two indirect sources of federal money - grants through CPB and member station dues - taxpayer dollars still appear to add up to less than ten percent of its budget. And while that's not negligible, it's a lot less than many people seem to think.
Now, Palin and Huckabee could counter that they are including member stations when they discuss NPR. (Though it should be noted that member stations are separate entities that both produce their own programming and take if from other sources -- and they aren't the ones that fired Williams.) If you include member stations under the "NPR" umbrella, then the CPB allocation would be fair game.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020383-503544.html
This is not your finest hour T.
So was Williams being interviewed as an individual or guest, or was he serving in his paid capacity as an NPR news analyst?
If he was in his official role as an analyst, he crossed a boundary into commentary and I could see his firing being easier to justify. If he were on the show as a guest, I think NPR made a mistake.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 21, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
So was Williams being interviewed as an individual or guest, or was he serving in his paid capacity as an NPR news analyst?
If he was in his official role as an analyst, he crossed a boundary into commentary and I could see his firing being easier to justify. If he were on the show as a guest, I think NPR made a mistake.
He was on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News Channel, sorry, Faux Nooz/Fixed News channel.
Quote from: guido911 on October 21, 2010, 06:01:27 PM
He was on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News Channel, sorry, Faux Nooz/Fixed News channel.
No, I caught that part. I'd read he's a frequent guest on O'Reilly but wasn't sure if he is in his official NPR capacity or as an individual who works in the media being interviewed. I so seldom watch commentary TV these days I don't keep up with the regulars.
Honestly, I think Williams was only saying what many of us might think if we got on an airliner and there was a Muslim in full garb. If he was appearing on behalf of NPR or in his paid capacity, that's one thing, if he was there on his own time, he should be welcome to express an opinion.
IOW- I believe Schiller is correct a news person or news analyst should not inflect personal opinion nor emotion (
in their official capacity- my parenthetical) however as a commentator, it's appropriate. What I'm trying to ascertain is if Schiller believes reporters, anchors, and analysts do not have a right to have personal views off the clock. That seems pretty draconian to me.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 21, 2010, 06:35:39 PM
What I'm trying to ascertain is if Schiller believes reporters, anchors, and analysts do not have a right to have personal views off the clock. That seems pretty draconian to me.
If you're the face (or one of the faces) of a company, it's pretty much a given that you'll be disciplined or fired if you say things that are as stupid as what he said. It's one thing to think idiotic things like that, but it shows terrible judgment to say that out loud.
Quote from: nathanm on October 21, 2010, 06:53:22 PM
If you're the face (or one of the faces) of a company, it's pretty much a given that you'll be disciplined or fired if you say things that are as stupid as what he said. It's one thing to think idiotic things like that, but it shows terrible judgment to say that out loud.
Did NPR fire Totenberg over these comments?
How about this idiot's attack on Christianity:
http://www.current.org/people/peop601.html
Noted right wing bomb-thrower Bob Beckel just said that he gets nervous seeing Muslims dressed in their garb on airplanes. He should be fired immediately.
It appears that Sen. Jim Demint is submitting legislation to defund NPR. This guy apparently does not know that NPR does not not receive federal money.
http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=529805&articleId=947436&func=6&channel=Member+Guided+News&filterRead=false&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false
You are still wrong Guido. It doesn't matter how many times you post things and try to change the subject.
Quote from: Townsend on October 21, 2010, 10:27:30 PM
You are still wrong Guido. It doesn't matter how many times you post things and try to change the subject.
I think he needs a binky.
Quote from: Townsend on October 21, 2010, 10:27:30 PM
You are still wrong Guido. It doesn't matter how many times you post things and try to change the subject.
OMG, are you still talking? You and Schiller must be the only people on the planet that believe NPR receives no taxpayer money.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 08:06:59 AM
OMG, are you still talking? You and Schiller must be the only people on the planet that believe NPR receives no taxpayer money.
It amazes me that you can't tell the difference between a network and its affiliates. Some stations' affiliation is loose enough that they carry both NPR and PRI programming. (more like most, actually)
Huffpo is claiming Juan Williams was given a $2mm contract to go to work at Fox.
Sounds like that ended well for him if it's true and he takes it.
Quote from: nathanm on October 22, 2010, 08:28:37 AM
It amazes me that you can't tell the difference between a network and its affiliates. Some stations' affiliation is loose enough that they carry both NPR and PRI programming. (more like most, actually)
It amazes me that you and others believe that NPR does not receive taxpayer money.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 08:54:42 AM
It amazes me that you and others believe that NPR does not receive taxpayer money.
It's amazing you still defend these jackass positions. Who said they don't?
Your Palin lust blinds you.
Funding
According to the 2005 financial statement, NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees and dues it charges member stations to receive programming. Public funding accounts for 16% of the average member station's revenue, with 10% of this coming in the form of grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a federally funded organization.[14][15][16] Some more of that money originates from local and state governments and government-funded universities subsidizing member stations' fees and dues to NPR.[17] Member stations that serve rural and "minority" communities receive significantly more funding from the CPB; in some cases up to 70%.[14] About 2% of NPR's non-membership created funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the CPB itself.
Over the years, the portion of the total NPR budget that comes from government funding has decreased. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations, and less from the federal government."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio
And Juan Williams seems to be at odds with Schiller's position they recieve no taxpayer funding:
"Juan Williams, the former National Public Radio news analyst who was abruptly fired this week for expressing a personal view on Fox News, called for the federal government to stop funding the radio organization.
"If they want to compete in the marketplace, they should compete in the marketplace," Williams said Friday in an interview on "Fox and Friends". "They don't need public funds. I think that they should go out there. They think their product is so great, go out and sell the product."
Williams lost his job as a news analyst for the organization Wednesday after he said publicly that he sometimes gets nervous in airports when he sees passengers who appear to "identify first and foremost as Muslims."
About two percent of NPR's budget comes from grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the organization receives dues from local member stations that are largely taxpayer-funded. Williams joins a growing chorus of policymakers and commentators who have also called for the federal government to cut the organization off and force it to compete on its own like other news media outlets. A majority of the organization's funding already comes from private donors and sponsors.
Williams also suggested that NPR feels entitled to taxpayer money, and called its need for public funds "nonsense."
"And too often, they make it out like, 'you know what, we are a public jewel and we need the protection of the federal government, we need federal funds that come through the member stations and they pay for this product.' Nonsense," he said.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/22/juan-williams-calls-for-the-government-to-defund-npr/#ixzz1362QhaO0
BBC will be losing 16% of its funding over the next 4 years.
It's be a shame for any funding to be cut from NPR. We'd be stuck with "Super Crazy Clown Time" with O'Reilly and his minions.
These screaming morons are just pissed because they don't understand the programming and don't tolerate open mindedness.
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 09:09:29 AM
BBC will be losing 16% of its funding over the next 4 years.
It's be a shame for any funding to be cut from NPR. We'd be stuck with "Super Crazy Clown Time" with O'Reilly and his minions.
These screaming morons are just pissed because they don't understand the programming and don't tolerate open mindedness.
Sounds like some of the posters on here *cough*cough*..
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 09:02:22 AM
It's amazing you still defend these jackass positions. Who said they don't?
Your Palin lust blinds you.
Why did you start this thread? You cited a quote from Schiller wherein she asserted NPR did not receive an allocation of federal funds in order to slam Palin and Huckabee wanting to defund NPR.
BTW, this is not about Palin despite your lust for bashing conservative women. This is about whether taxpayers in a time of fiscal chaos propping up radio--at least for now. DeMint makes good on defunding NPR.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020458-503544.html
QuoteYou cited a quote from Schiller wherein she asserted NPR did not receive an allocation of federal funds in order to slam Palin and Huckabee wanting to defund NPR.
Wrong.
QuoteBTW, this is not about Palin despite your lust for bashing conservative women.
Your same tired lines. The act is still old. She's trying to remove books from libraries starting as Mayor and now she's saying NPR is guilty of censorship?
QuoteDeMint makes good on defunding NPR.
Tryin' to get him some conservative love.
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 12:27:33 PM
Wrong.
Your same tired lines. The act is still old. She's trying to remove books from libraries starting as Mayor and now she's saying NPR is guilty of censorship?
Tryin' to get him some conservative love.
What was your point in starting this thread? It's a simple question.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 12:31:55 PM
What was your point in starting this thread? It's a simple question.
Religious conservatives posturing to get attention by trying to damage one of our best media outlets.
It's pathetic that they want to remove an excellent source of information to further their skewed ideals.
Their minions will follow them and I'm afraid it will do irreparable damage to something that means something to me.
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 12:35:42 PM
Religious conservatives posturing to get attention by trying to damage one of our best media outlets.
It's pathetic that they want to remove an excellent source of information to further their skewed ideals.
Their minions will follow them and I'm afraid it will do irreparable damage to something that means something to me.
Calm down T, your paranoia is bordering on fotd. You accused Palin and Huckabee of not having their finest moment before citing Schiller's bullcrap assertion that NPR does not receive federal funding allocation (which they demanded be cut off). I showed you two reports wherein NPR does in fact receive taxpayer money and you backpedal and attack "religious conservatives". What the heck does religion have to do with this?
I am trying to figure why you are accusing me of being wrong about something. What am I wrong about?
Oh, and the fact that you assert NPR is an excellent source of information speaks volumes.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 12:42:56 PM
Oh, and the fact that you assert NPR is an excellent source of information speaks volumes.
It is an excellent source of information. It is not my first choice, but my wife loves to listen to it and thus I am listening to NPR some parts of every week. You should try listening before you just insult it.
http://www.npr.org/
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 12:42:56 PM
I am trying to figure why you are accusing me of being wrong about something. What am I wrong about?
You are wrong that NPR itself receives significant government funding. That its member stations do or do not is completely irrelevant.
Quote from: nathanm on October 22, 2010, 01:23:56 PM
You are wrong that NPR itself receives significant government funding. That its member stations do or do not is completely irrelevant.
Did he say they recieved "significant" funding?
Juan Williams makes a good point: Public funds make up about 2% of NPR's budget, they should have no problem replacing it.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 12:42:56 PM
You accused Palin and Huckabee of not having their finest moment before citing Schiller's bullcrap assertion that NPR does not receive federal funding allocation (which they demanded be cut off). I showed you two reports wherein NPR does in fact receive taxpayer money and you backpedal and attack "religious conservatives". What the heck does religion have to do with this?
You asked my point, I gave it to you.
You just keep trying to change the conversation to suit your needs.
What is your point with the reports? They prove that Palin and Huckabee aren't angry at NPR?
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 02:33:22 PM
You asked my point, I gave it to you.
You just keep trying to change the conversation to suit your needs.
What is your point with the reports? They prove that Palin and Huckabee aren't angry at NPR?
I thought you were making fun of those two for wanting to defund NPR when, according to Schiller, NPR did not receive federal money. That would explain the "not the finest moment" statement and the subsequent quote from Schiller. Now, how have I changed the subject based on that understanding?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 22, 2010, 12:53:40 PM
It is an excellent source of information.
With stories like this I can see how it is an excellent source to you and Townsend.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 02:41:56 PM
With stories like this I can see how it is an excellent source to you and Townsend.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047
That's opinion. Everyone's got one.
I listen for the news, music, and stories.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 02:38:39 PM
I thought you were making fun of those two
Making fun? How? They can do serious damage to something I enjoy.
If they're concerned about funding they need to look into any religious organizations voicing a political opinion while enjoying tax free status.
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 02:44:12 PM
That's opinion. Everyone's got one.
I listen for the news, music, and stories.
And therein lies the understated point of this story. Juan Williams gave his opinion on a matter, an opinion which is shared by untold numbers in a post 9/11 world, and he gets fired. It seems only certain opinions are acceptable to NPR.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 02:38:39 PM
according to Schiller, NPR did not receive federal money.
From original article:
Schiller;
QuoteWe do apply for competitive grants from the likes of the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation. As a result, some money from CPB does come to us when we win grants. Depending on the year, it represents just one to three percent of our total budget."
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 02:50:47 PM
And therein lies the understate point of this story. Juan Williams gave his opinion on a matter, an opinion which is shared by untold numbers in a post 9/11 world, and he gets fired. It seems only certain opinions are acceptable to NPR.
He was on FOX saying what their audience wanted to hear.
You think he'd've gotten the $2,000,000 job if he'd told O'Reilly he's a jackass?
Instead he said what O'Reilly wants said on his show and thus was released from NPR.
So why do we need to defund them? I still don't get it.
Because they decided to fire a pundit based on a semi-offensive comment? I mean, we know that Guido's going to jump on it because it's an article of faith amongst conservative idealogues that NPR is a fatally biased organization. If you're not a conservative idealogue, it's pretty obvious that it's a news organization with the softest of leftward slants. In other words, certainly not enough to compromise it's quality of reportage, which is mostly impeccable.
So they make a less-than-optimum HR call (about whose less-than-optimumness I would agree; William's comments weren't that bad, at least at the level of our current national discourse about Muslims); is that why we should go into search-and-destroy mode?
Also: a pundit who lives by his opinion must also die by his opinion. Luckily for Juan Williams, he had a $ 2 mil rebirth.
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 02:51:06 PM
From original article:
Schiller;
Again, you accused me of being wrong about something in this thread. What was I wrong about? Oh, and you could easily have resolved this apparent misunderstanding instead of saying one report I linked to didn't say "jack".
As for your quote, where was that in your initial post on this thread? Is it because it didn't fit your narrative?
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 02:53:04 PM
He was on FOX saying what their audience wanted to hear.
You think he'd've gotten the $2,000,000 job if he'd told O'Reilly he's a jackass?
Instead he said what O'Reilly wants said on his show and thus was released from NPR.
Come on, T. Get off the "Fox News" sucks kick and look at what happened. Do you really believe Williams has a bigoted bone in his body? Also, did Williams deserve to have Schiller tell the world that he should share his opinions with his psychiatrist?
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 03:44:51 PM
As for your quote, where was that in your initial post on this thread? Is it because it didn't fit your narrative?
Are you serious? It's right there. In the original post.
As Stephen Colbert noted, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." I think Williams was speaking his mind and merely speaking what many of us would think in that situation. That's fine. He's entitled to an opinion.
But...
He also presented a public image for NPR, and although I can't speak to the truth of this, I'd imagine there's a prohibition in his contract regarding conflict of interest and maintaining NPR's 'brand'. Doing opinion pieces on Fox very likely violated his contract.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 03:47:48 PM
Come on, T. Get off the "Fox News" sucks kick and look at what happened. Do you really believe Williams has a bigoted bone in his body? Also, did Williams deserve to have Schiller tell the world that he should share his opinions with his psychiatrist?
They do. It's all entertainment meant to sell air. I'm not a fan of all the coverage Lindsey Lohan gets either. It's why I change channels.
When did I say he was a bigot?
Is that why they're mad at NPR? Because of Schiller's memo?
Quote from: we vs us on October 22, 2010, 02:55:51 PM
So why do we need to defund them? I still don't get it.
Because they decided to fire a pundit based on a semi-offensive comment? I mean, we know that Guido's going to jump on it because it's an article of faith amongst conservative idealogues that NPR is a fatally biased organization. If you're not a conservative idealogue, it's pretty obvious that it's a news organization with the softest of leftward slants. In other words, certainly not enough to compromise it's quality of reportage, which is mostly impeccable.
So they make a less-than-optimum HR call (about whose less-than-optimumness I would agree; William's comments weren't that bad, at least at the level of our current national discourse about Muslims); is that why we should go into search-and-destroy mode?
Also: a pundit who lives by his opinion must also die by his opinion. Luckily for Juan Williams, he had a $ 2 mil rebirth.
Fair point. I do not listen to much on the radio nowadays (I-Phone junky), so I am unaffected except to the extent that my tax dollars go there.
Quote from: Ed W on October 22, 2010, 03:50:30 PM
As Stephen Colbert noted, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." I think Williams was speaking his mind and merely speaking what many of us would think in that situation. That's fine. He's entitled to an opinion.
But...
He also presented a public image for NPR, and although I can't speak to the truth of this, I'd imagine there's a prohibition in his contract regarding conflict of interest and maintaining NPR's 'brand'. Doing opinion pieces on Fox very likely violated his contract.
Williams has been on Fox for years offering opinions and THIS is what gets him canned? This whole event makes no sense to me.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2010, 03:51:22 PM
Fair point. I do not listen to much on the radio nowadays (I-Phone junky), so I am unaffected except to the extent that my tax dollars go there.
Much more of your tax dollars go to much worse places.
Give them a try. NPR is a good source.
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 03:53:36 PM
Much more of your tax dollars go to much worse places.
We can agree on that point.
Quote from: Townsend on October 22, 2010, 04:02:42 PM
and the crowd goes wild
(http://jeffsalz.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/6a00d834527dd469e20105364b1f9b970b-800wi1.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn46/mantisounds/mr-rogers-pop-and-lock.gif)
So your employer can give you the choice to either work 24 hours a day for a week or be fired. You can be fired for things you say on facebook. You can fire people for being divorced from a family member. But you can't be fired for things you say on national TV. Got it.
Quote from: Trogdor on October 25, 2010, 12:37:19 PM
So your employer can give you the choice to either work 24 hours a day for a week or be fired. You can be fired for things you say on facebook. You can fire people for being divorced from a family member. But you can't be fired for things you say on national TV. Got it.
He's got pretty good grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit, much as someone would after being fired for posting things on Facebook unless they were particularly slanderous or libelous toward the employer, co-worker, or supervisor. Expressing an opinion to or on something which did not involve his employer isn't very strong grounds for dismissal unless there's something in his contract which specifically forbids him from exhibiting Islamaphobia in public.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2010, 12:43:37 PM
He's got pretty good grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit, much as someone would after being fired for posting things on Facebook unless they were particularly slanderous or libelous toward the employer, co-worker, or supervisor. Expressing an opinion to or on something which did not involve his employer isn't very strong grounds for dismissal unless there's something in his contract which specifically forbids him from exhibiting Islamaphobia in public.
His employment was likely at will, therefore leaving the employer with unlimited license to fire him. (as long as he wasn't fired for being part of a protected class or being a whistleblower, among a few other exceptions)
Employers pretty much don't need grounds for dismissal these days, unless there's a union involved and/or the employment contract specifically states that the employee may only be fired for specifically enumerated reasons. We don't live in France or Germany.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2010, 01:56:16 PM
His employment was likely at will, therefore leaving the employer with unlimited license to fire him. (as long as he wasn't fired for being part of a protected class or being a whistleblower, among a few other exceptions)
Employers pretty much don't need grounds for dismissal these days, unless there's a union involved and/or the employment contract specifically states that the employee may only be fired for specifically enumerated reasons. We don't live in France or Germany.
Lawsuits are filed every day on behalf of at will employees for wrongful termination, even when said employees are complete jagoffs.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2010, 02:53:01 PM
Lawsuits are filed every day on behalf of at will employees for wrongful termination, even when said employees are complete jagoffs.
They might get filed, and even settled, but as a matter of law, unless there is discrimination against a protected class involved (or other misconduct, like sexual harassment), they can't win at trial. The employee simply doesn't have any more of a right to a job than the employer has a right to force the employee to work for them. That's the purpose of "right to work" laws, after all.
Employers often choose not to dismiss people without cause, but that's because they don't want their unemployment insurance premiums going up.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2010, 02:56:29 PM
That's the purpose of "right to work" laws, after all.
Um, did you mean "employment at will" laws?
Quote from: guido911 on October 25, 2010, 03:17:37 PM
Um, did you mean "employment at will" laws?
The right to work law, at least in Arkansas, specifies that employees may not be required to join a union as a condition of employment, that employees may quit at any time, and that employers may dismiss for any time with or without cause, aside from a few exceptions related to discrimination.
Perhaps they were enacted as separate bills in Oklahoma and elsewhere; I wouldn't know.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2010, 02:53:01 PM
Lawsuits are filed every day on behalf of at will employees for wrongful termination, even when said employees are complete jagoffs.
Your employer can force you to work as much overtime as they want and give you 0 notice. If you don't work it you are fired. That is the cause. It isn't wrongful. So I am sure 24 hours a day could get a lawsuit. They could probably just work you 18every day until you quit. Of course if they can fire you without cause then I guess it doesn't matter how many hours.
Quote from: Trogdor on October 25, 2010, 09:28:05 PM
Your employer can force request you to work as much overtime as they want and give you 0 notice. If you don't want to work it you are free to leave.
Tough to leave in the present economy, I know.
I worked for an employer under a contract once. They gave me training and many other perks including company housing and dining, clothing allowance, free medical and dental. Down side included forced overtime, doing jobs I did not like which were sometimes not what I thought I was hired to do. Working conditions were not always good and I was sometimes forced to temporarily relocate. I could not easily terminate the contract but when it got to the end of the term I did not renew.
I've been an at will employee at several places since then. I quit one. I got RIFFed at two due to lack of business.
They obviously can't make you show up. I just use the word force based on getting no unemployment benefits and having no job. Yes, there are people that have the choice to be homeless/eat or get taken advantage of.
Quote from: Trogdor on October 26, 2010, 07:39:27 AM
They obviously can't make you show up. I just use the word force based on getting no unemployment benefits and having no job. Yes, there are people that have the choice to be homeless/eat or get taken advantage of.
Or in a better economy, get a different job.
I won't say it's easy. I've been through some difficult times at jobs where I stayed for other reasons. Being hourly, salary non-exempt, or salary exempt and the way each are treated is also a factor.
The people who would get abused by that are the same that would be living pay check to pay check. So yeah, if you can get a new job in a week to pay your rent. Good for you.
NPR got BURNED by James O'Keefe.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-npr-execs-call-tea-partiers-gun-toting-racists-hidden-camera-video-suggests-they-did/
Schiller resigned today.
Quote from: guido911 on March 08, 2011, 09:03:38 PM
NPR got BURNED by James O'Keefe.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-npr-execs-call-tea-partiers-gun-toting-racists-hidden-camera-video-suggests-they-did/
Schiller resigned today.
Of course you know it was all trumped up and O'Keefe probably used over-dubs...blah blah blah
Quote from: Conan71 on March 08, 2011, 10:02:55 PM
Of course you know it was all trumped up and O'Keefe probably used over-dubs...blah blah blah
Juan Williams responds:
Where is RM and the other lefties in this forum to defend NPR, especially given NPR's condemnation of Schiller's remarks and Schiller's immediate resignation?
Quote from: guido911 on March 08, 2011, 09:03:38 PM
NPR got BURNED by James O'Keefe.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-npr-execs-call-tea-partiers-gun-toting-racists-hidden-camera-video-suggests-they-did/
Schiller resigned today.
So what was the controversial part again?
Quote from: we vs us on March 08, 2011, 10:35:45 PM
So what was the controversial part again?
If you want to attack the veracity of the video, let's hear/read it. Give me a link on how this video is contrived/controversial, especially after Schiller's "immediate resignation" after it went viral.
Quote from: guido911 on March 08, 2011, 10:42:24 PM
If you want to attack the veracity of the video, let's hear/read it. Give me a link on how this video is contrived/controversial, especially after Schiller's "immediate resignation" after it went viral.
(http://doomdog.net/AttentionWhore.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on March 08, 2011, 10:42:24 PM
If you want to attack the veracity of the video, let's hear/read it. Give me a link on how this video is contrived/controversial, especially after Schiller's "immediate resignation" after it went viral.
No you misunderstand. I don't see what's controversial about his Tea Party statement.
But unfortunately, douchebags like O'Keefe are out there taping people's private conversations; and unfortunately they get caught saying these things; so I think Schiller did the right thing, which was to just minimize the damage by acquiescing and then getting the hell out of the limelight. This will blow over much faster that way.
Quote from: guido911 on March 08, 2011, 10:33:34 PM
Where is RM and the other lefties in this forum to defend NPR, especially given NPR's condemnation of Schiller's remarks and Schiller's immediate resignation?
What is with you? You post something and then call out people to argue with you?
Chill dude.
Quote from: we vs us on March 09, 2011, 06:10:46 AM
No you misunderstand. I don't see what's controversial about his Tea Party statement.
So are negative stereotypes acceptable if you don't like a group?
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 09, 2011, 08:03:55 AM
So are negative stereotypes acceptable if you don't like a group?
Overall? No. But I don't particularly see much of that as a stereotype. I see it as a fairly accurate description of the Tea Party these days. By the time you roll all the Obama-as-KenyanIndonesianMuslimWitchdoctor stuff together with the anti-Muslim hysteria together with the anti-immigrant legislation sweeping some of the more conservative statehouses you've got a pretty solid pattern of xenophobia emerging.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .
Quote from: we vs us on March 09, 2011, 08:14:05 AM
Overall? No. But I don't particularly see much of that as a stereotype. I see it as a fairly accurate description of the Tea Party these days.
Pretty standard answer for someone believing in a stereotype.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 09, 2011, 08:17:17 AM
Pretty standard answer for someone believing in a stereotype.
. . . . and you ignored the last part of what I said. Which is: there's a lot of loud, demonstrable anti-foreigner stuff going on with the different Tea Parties across the country.
We can get into the answerless argument about when a stereotype becomes truth, but in my opinion it's getting harder and harder to ignore that part of the Tea Party. Especially because they seem intent on screaming it from every corner.
It's a shame when someone takes pleasure in something that damages an excellent organization like NPR.
I assumed the far right would try to attack NPR since it doesn't tow their line.
Alot of local affiliates could be closed due to funding cuts but that's okay with the conservatives. To much realism and fair journalism damages their soap boxes.
Quote from: we vs us on March 09, 2011, 08:14:05 AM
Overall? No. But I don't particularly see much of that as a stereotype. I see it as a fairly accurate description of the Tea Party these days. By the time you roll all the Obama-as-KenyanIndonesianMuslimWitchdoctor stuff together with the anti-Muslim hysteria together with the anti-immigrant legislation sweeping some of the more conservative statehouses you've got a pretty solid pattern of xenophobia emerging.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .
You do realize there are still quite a few hardline racist Democrats, right? Probably about the same percentage as there are in the Tea Party, GOP, Green, Libertarian, etc. Racism and xenophobia are hardly disorders of political affiliation.
Quote from: Townsend on March 09, 2011, 08:56:30 AM
It's a shame when someone takes pleasure in something that damages an excellent organization like NPR.
I assumed the far right would try to attack NPR since it doesn't tow their line.
Alot of local affiliates could be closed due to funding cuts but that's okay with the conservatives. To much realism and fair journalism damages their soap boxes.
Let the listeners support their local stations with a donation if they like it so much and it provides a value to them instead of expecting someone else to pick up the tab to keep it on the air.
Essentially that's what those of us do who listen to commercial radio, we spend money at the businesses who keep the programming we like on the air.
Quote from: we vs us on March 09, 2011, 08:44:36 AM
. . . . and you ignored the last part of what I said. Which is: there's a lot of loud, demonstrable anti-foreigner stuff going on with the different Tea Parties across the country.
We can get into the answerless argument about when a stereotype becomes truth, but in my opinion it's getting harder and harder to ignore that part of the Tea Party. Especially because they seem intent on screaming it from every corner.
Actually, I did not ignore it. I considered it part of the justification of the stereotype. Stereotypes are often based somewhat in reality for a portion of the group. I agree the remainder of the argument will be answerless. Once again we disagree. No surprise there.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 09, 2011, 09:28:44 AM
Let the listeners support their local stations with a donation if they like it so much and it provides a value to them instead of expecting someone else to pick up the tab to keep it on the air.
Essentially that's what those of us do who listen to commercial radio, we spend money at the businesses who keep the programming we like on the air.
We could also start collecting taxes on any tax free organization taking any political stand. Seems fair to me.
An employee is fired for stating a stereotype fear about Muslims on a plane and the right wing has a fit.
An employee states a stereotype about a far rightwing conservative group and then resigns. Then his former boss resigns. This brings rejoicing from the far right.
Quote from: Townsend on March 09, 2011, 09:47:26 AM
We could also start collecting taxes on any tax free organization taking any political stand. Seems fair to me.
Churches and possibly some Labor Unions come to mind. Anything else?
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 09, 2011, 09:55:17 AM
Churches and possibly some Labor Unions come to mind. Anything else?
No, that'll do.
Quote from: Townsend on March 09, 2011, 09:51:29 AM
An employee is fired for stating a stereotype fear about Muslims on a plane and the right wing has a fit.
An employee states a stereotype about a far rightwing conservative group and then resigns. Then his former boss resigns. This brings rejoicing from the far right.
I'll let you spin that one around for yourself regarding who rejoices and who has a fit.
I am a fan of PBS and NPR, but I think that federal funding should stop.
Why in the heck would they want to continue to be victims of political swings?
Republicans have wanted to cut the funding since the 70's...lets get it over with. As long as the funding continues they will stay under the microscope that the privately owned "news" sources avoid.
Public Broadcasting is a luxury that the US can no longer afford. Cutting their funding should get us out of the red and into the black and maybe even help us find money to enter more conflicts or buy some new helicopters.
Quote from: carltonplace on March 09, 2011, 12:21:55 PM
Cutting their funding should get us out of the red and into the black and maybe even help us find money to enter more conflicts or buy some new helicopters.
Helicopters...black helicopters...
Quote from: Townsend on March 09, 2011, 09:47:26 AM
We could also start collecting taxes on any tax free organization taking any political stand. Seems fair to me.
I was thinking that same thing today. I was stopped in traffic behind a vehicle with a "not for profit" license plate and couldn't help but think "hey, they use the road just as much as I do... why don't they pay to help maintain it?"
Imagine the tax base Tulsa would gain if we taxed churches. WOW. Perhaps with that revenue the state could have more schools than churches. ;)
IMHO, the portion of funding used to support arts, charity (feeding homeless people, helping with healthcare, clothing poor kids, etc.), or education makes sense to be tax free. But why is money tax free to fund the political message of unions or the religious messages of churches? You take a trip to XYZ to convert people - fine, but why is that tax exempt? Your union takes a trip to DC to protest- fine, but why are the proceeds to pay for that trip free?
Those things are not bettering everyone. They are bettering the person who holds that belief or point of view. But I digress...
The "NPR scandal" is of course entirely political. The right has hated the media for decades and has atively campaigned to kill NPR for at least a decade. Whatever the current crisis may be is just an excuse to go on the attack.
What's missed in the entire debate is that the FUNDRAISER agreed with Muslims willing to give a bundle of money that the Tea Party was racists. He probably would have agreed with a bunch of rednecks that Muslims are a threat if they offered a boatload of money. His job was to get money, not spread a message.
On top of that, if someone had set up a sting to catch Rush being a dude - they would have attacked the person who set up the sting. Not the result.
The best thing to come out of this is the Blogger Geller (creator of the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue), who came across a fake website of the of the Islamists and wrote:
QuoteI'd rather blow up the world than live as a slave. As for [MEAC chairman] Bin Talal, we have to stop financing our executioners. Enough dollars for jihad. We need to throw the left-enemy out of power and start drilling and mining our own resources. We must throw off the shackles that the enemy within has enslaved us with.
Yeah, damn those terrorists! If they don't do what we want or if they try to tell us what to do we'll blow up the world! Stupid terrorists.
Of course now she knew it was a hoax all along. Here is a liberal link making fun of conservatives who made fun of a liberal muslim site that was really set up by conservatives to trap liberals into agreeing to something stupid:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/08/okeefe_npr_pamela_geller/index.html
I have a hard time believing what O'Keefe claims to have recorded is what actually happened. Beyond that, I was unaware that people weren't allowed to have personal opinions. Well, apparently they are if they're right wing opinions, but not if they're left wing opinions.
And, FWIW, Tea Partiers are about 25% more likely than the rest of the population to hold racist views: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html
Quote
For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren't much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.
Quote from: nathanm on March 09, 2011, 06:53:44 PM
I have a hard time believing what O'Keefe claims to have recorded is what actually happened. Beyond that, I was unaware that people weren't allowed to have personal opinions. Well, apparently they are if they're right wing opinions, but not if they're left wing opinions.
And, FWIW, Tea Partiers are about 25% more likely than the rest of the population to hold racist views: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html
I don't have near the time to go into depth, but let's just say that's one of the poorest surveys I've seen in quite some time. The methodology is suspect and it's obvious the good professor started out with the intention of painting the Tea Party as racist. As far as "scholarly" work, this is not a career moment for the author.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 09, 2011, 11:38:41 PM
I don't have near the time to go into depth,
I can wait until you do. ;)
I'm all for taxing some of these churches where the pastors' drive around Mercedes...Hot Rods...Harleys...Luxury motor-homes.....
Quote from: Breadburner on March 10, 2011, 12:14:06 PM
I'm all for taxing some of these churches where the pastors' drive around Mercedes...Hot Rods...Harleys...Luxury motor-homes.....
Any "TV" church: tax them.
We all know what a liar O'Keefe is. It was proven with his Acorn lies. And this is most likely another heavily edited piece of work.
As for NPR, well, ok, let's get rid of all funding for it - the few million they get every year. As a huge fan, I could live with that, since I can just kick up my contribution a little bit, IF we first get rid of the blasphemy of the Iraq war where we spend $160 billion per year (not to mention 4000+ of our kids). Or the billions required to fund 8 different military bases in Occupied Japan. Or the billions spent on a huge number of bases around the world. Or the billions Inhofe wants us to spend on military systems the military doesn't want or need. Or the billions spent every year to "discredit" democratically elected governments in countries where we want our puppet dictators to rule. Or the billions spent to subsidize big oil. Or the hundreds of billions in obscene "tax breaks" given to the top 1% of rich in this country (you know who they are - the ones that get by paying only 16% on their years income). Or the billions to subsidize large corporate farm corporations. Or the tens of billions used to subsidize nuclear power in this country.
In fact, if we got rid of all that other garbage, our taxes could go down enough so that I could send NPR a whole lot more!!
I'll vote yes with you to defund the NPR millions if you vote yes with me to defund the hundreds of billions on these lies and obscenities.
Scott Baker of "The Blaze" (Glenn Beck's news site) is backing NPR on this one now.
QuoteScott Baker, editor in chief of the conservative news site The Blaze, tells David that after watching the two-hour video he came away with the impression that the NPR executives "seem to be fairly balanced people."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/14/134528545/npr-okeefe-inappropriately-edited-video-execs-words-still-egregious?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/14/134528545/npr-okeefe-inappropriately-edited-video-execs-words-still-egregious?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Who is O'Keefe helping? Who will wake up the next day and say "ahhh, that's better."?
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134525412/Segments-Of-NPR-Gotcha-Video-Taken-Out-Of-Context?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134525412/Segments-Of-NPR-Gotcha-Video-Taken-Out-Of-Context?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Shouldn't O'keefe be in jail?
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 14, 2011, 10:49:08 AM
Shouldn't O'keefe be in jail?
Along with Karl Rove?
Sielgelman?
Welcome back.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2011, 11:13:47 AM
Along with Karl Rove?
Sielgelman?
Welcome back.
Don't forget Murdoch, Bush and Cheney!
You wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about "you know what". Don't you think Bush would deserve proportionately more punishment for lying about what he lied about and doing proportionately so much more damage??
Or is personal responsibility a one sided thing applying to non-RWRE only?
And Rove? Over the years, way beyond anything Bush ever did.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 14, 2011, 01:18:33 PM
You wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about "you know what". Don't you think Bush would deserve proportionately more punishment for lying about what he lied about and doing proportionately so much more damage??
Or is personal responsibility a one sided thing applying to non-RWRE only?
And Rove? Over the years, way beyond anything Bush ever did.
That vein in your head is pulsating again.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 14, 2011, 01:18:33 PM
You wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about "you know what".
Clinton was successfully impeached for lying to congress under oath. He and Andrew Jackson were the only presidents in the history of this country to be successfully impeached.
He was not impeached for having an affair with an intern, or dragging the country through a ridiculous trial because he couldn't just be honest and answer the allegations against him like a grown-up. Instead, we had to go through the painful smirks, eye rolling and sighs on debating the meaning of the word "is."
It was an embarrassment.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 14, 2011, 03:06:55 PM
Clinton was successfully impeached for lying to congress under oath. He and Andrew Jackson were the only presidents in the history of this country to be successfully impeached.
He was not impeached for having an affair with an intern, or dragging the country through a ridiculous trial because he couldn't just be honest and answer the allegations against him like a grown-up. Instead, we had to go through the painful smirks, eye rolling and sighs on debating the meaning of the word "is."
It was an embarrassment.
Looks like in both cases the prosecution should've moved on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson)
QuoteThe Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the United States, was one of the most dramatic events in the political life of the United States during Reconstruction, and the first impeachment in history of a sitting United States president.
The Impeachment was the consummation of a lengthy political battle, between the moderate Johnson and the "Radical Republican" movement that dominated Congress, for control of Reconstruction policies after the American Civil War.
Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868 in the U.S. House of Representatives on eleven articles of impeachment detailing his "high crimes and misdemeanors",[1] in accordance with Article Two of the United States Constitution. The House's primary charge against Johnson was with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress the previous year. Specifically, he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War (whom the Tenure of Office Act was largely designed to protect), from office and replaced him with John McAllister Schofield.
The House agreed to the articles of impeachment on March 2, 1868. The trial began three days later in the Senate, with Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. Trial concluded on May 16 with Johnson's acquittal, the final count falling one vote shy of the required tally for conviction.
The impeachment and subsequent trial gained a historical reputation as an act of political expedience, rather than necessity, based on Johnson's defiance of an unconstitutional piece of legislation and with little regard for the will of the public (which, despite the unpopularity of Johnson, opposed the impeachment). Until the impeachment of Bill Clinton 131 years later, it was the only presidential impeachment in the history of the United States.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 14, 2011, 02:05:55 PM
That vein in your head is pulsating again.
And apparently President Clinton suffered from pulsating vein syndrome too ;)
So the question remains; why wasn't Bush impeached for lying to Congress, and breaking the oath of office he took?
No difference. Except in RWREland.
That's why we ended up with Obama. Anyone but Bush syndrome.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 14, 2011, 10:07:45 PM
So the question remains; why wasn't Bush impeached for lying to Congress, and breaking the oath of office he took?
No difference. Except in RWREland.
That's why we ended up with Obama. Anyone but Bush syndrome.
Hi Herionimous, this is reality, have we met?
President Bush never testified before Congress. Secondly, if we used that standard, there were quite a few intelligence bureaucrats and fellow Congressmen who would go down in flames as well. He simply relied on the same info his predecessor had. Don't believe me? Bubba still thought Saddam had missing WMD the day he left office. Real simple, Google "Clinton, Larry King, Weapons of Mass Destruction". Apparently he was just as gullible as President Bush, Hillarity Cliton, John Kerry, and others. President Bush didn't invent the WMD story, he simply was the person most unfortunate enough to be sitting in the hot seat when it was time to go with the company line. I wonder if Algore would have been treated quite as harshly by the left?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2011, 11:16:39 PM
Hi Herionimous, this is reality, have we met?
President Bush never testified before Congress. Secondly, if we used that standard, there were quite a few intelligence bureaucrats and fellow Congressmen who would go down in flames as well. He simply relied on the same info his predecessor had. Don't believe me? Bubba still thought Saddam had missing WMD the day he left office. Real simple, Google "Clinton, Larry King, Weapons of Mass Destruction". Apparently he was just as gullible as President Bush, Hillarity Cliton, John Kerry, and others. President Bush didn't invent the WMD story, he simply was the person most unfortunate enough to be sitting in the hot seat when it was time to go with the company line. I wonder if Algore would have been treated quite as harshly by the left?
Algore believes that oil is a weapon of mass destruction, therefore when he marched troops into Iraq, he would have most certainly found WMD!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jjr1DW8JJu4/TT0QtRQ138I/AAAAAAAAAFs/7plp79p_fek/s1600/Gore.jpg)
The WMD NEVER were missing. They were used up. We provided him a specific amount of materials and equipment and training. They had a pretty good idea that most of it had been used up, but you never know exactly what proportions were used and how much residual was left. (Kind of like the uncertainty of fountain mix - what ratio is the machine set to). Hence the uncertainty by Billy Bob, and Bush, and the reason the CIA hedged their bets when making statements about WMD in Iraq in 2002 and 2003.
Ah, would that the RWRE would actually MEET Reality sometime!! What a wonderful world it would be....
Looks like they will lose federal funding on Monday.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2011, 09:28:41 AM
Looks like they will lose federal funding on Monday.
How?
Quote from: Townsend on March 16, 2011, 09:49:21 AM
How?
House Rules committee will hold an emergency meeting today at 3 p.m. on H.R. 1076, the measure "to prohibit funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content."
The bill will go to the floor Tomorrow. The legislation is a stand-alone measure that would slash funding regardless of pending negotiations between the House and Senate on a continuing resolution.
Probably won't pass the senate or be signed by the president, but funding would end until the measure reaches pass or fail.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2011, 10:00:43 AM
House Rules committee will hold an emergency meeting today at 3 p.m. on H.R. 1076, the measure "to prohibit funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content."
The bill will go to the floor Tomorrow. The legislation is a stand-alone measure that would slash funding regardless of pending negotiations between the House and Senate on a continuing resolution.
Probably won't pass the senate or be signed by the president, but funding would end until the measure reaches pass or fail.
The links I'm finding don't say that. Would you link the story you're using please?
Quote from: Townsend on March 16, 2011, 10:08:16 AM
The links I'm finding don't say that. Would you link the story you're using please?
Here's the bill: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1076:
Here's the Politico story: http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/House_committee_moves_again_to_defund_NPR.html#
It is outside of any continuing resolutions. The resolution that passed yesterday is only good for the next three weeks, so this takes it out of the "Current Funding" argument and makes it a stand-alone measure. I'm not sure if this is smart, because it can't stand on it's own under this administration without having some carrots attached.
It will however expand the debate on public funding beyond just a fraction of the total budget discussion and spur more investigation into NPR's policies as they relate to being a political entity as well as a media outlet.
The federal bucks represent a very small % of the money NPR uses to operate. This separation of media and state will be a good thing for them and the public. It just may take more discovery or a new administration to become reality.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Here's the bill: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1076:
Here's the Politico story: http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/House_committee_moves_again_to_defund_NPR.html#
It is outside of any continuing resolutions. The resolution that passed yesterday is only good for the next three weeks, so this takes it out of the "Current Funding" argument and makes it a stand-alone measure. I'm not sure if this is smart, because it can't stand on it's own under this administration without having some carrots attached.
It will however expand the debate on public funding beyond just a fraction of the total budget discussion and spur more investigation into NPR's policies as they relate to being a political entity as well as a media outlet.
The federal bucks represent a very small % of the money NPR uses to operate. This separation of media and state will be a good thing for them and the public. It just may take more discovery or a new administration to become reality.
I saw the Politico but where's the "funding would end until the measure reaches pass or fail" coming from?
My misunderstanding. The person who sent it to me intrepreted "The pending legislation is a stand-alone measure that would slash funding regardless of pending negotiations between the House and Senate on a continuing resolution" incorrectly and I regurgitated it.
It passed the House. You can almost hear the socially conservative republicans, "Day tank differ'nt 'an us."
http://n.pr/eAyLwp (http://n.pr/eAyLwp)
QuoteThe House of Representatives just voted 228-192 to bar NPR from receiving any more federal funds. It was a partisan vote, with Republicans voting "aye" and Democrats voting "nay."
As NPR's Audie Cornish reported earlier:
"Two percent of NPR's revenue comes through competitive grants from federal agencies — in the commerce and education departments, for example. But [NPR] member station fees make up another 40 percent of revenue. And the House Bill would bar stations from using any federal funds for NPR.
"Republicans on the House Rules Committee said the move to defund the organization this week was sparked by the controversial and edited videos of NPR executives speaking disparagingly of conservatives, and saying NPR did not need federal funding."
As for what happens next, The National Journal says that "Republican efforts to cut off federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR are unlikely to advance past the House, as both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the White House are weighing in with their opposition."
Update at 3:45 p.m. ET. Breaking Down The Vote:
No Democrats voted in favor of cutting the funds — all 228 "aye" votes were from Republicans. Seven Republicans voted against the cut.
Oh, look, O'Keefe was indeed lying..yet AGAIN: http://wonkette.com/440468/glenn-becks-website-reveals-npr-lunch-video-was-edited-to-ruin-npr#more-440468
When will the news media learn to stop believing this f**ktard?
Quote from: nathanm on March 17, 2011, 05:21:30 PM
Oh, look, O'Keefe was indeed lying..yet AGAIN: http://wonkette.com/440468/glenn-becks-website-reveals-npr-lunch-video-was-edited-to-ruin-npr#more-440468
When will the news media learn to stop believing this f**ktard?
You know it's bad when Glenn Beck's web site busts you.
Actually, NPR reported on this on Tuesday after they viewed the full length video. Let's let Beck have the credit though...he needs attention and legitimizing.
That was good, good stuff.
Some Weiner trivia: was Jon Stewart's roommate in college.
Fortunately, Click & Clack appear Saturdays in the Tulsa World.
I really enjoy listening to them on LortonWorld radio! :P
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 19, 2011, 02:32:23 PM
I really enjoy listening to them on LortonWorld radio! :P
I need to get my hearing checked. I had to read the paper.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/gop-completely-fixes-economy-by-canceling-funding,19897/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/gop-completely-fixes-economy-by-canceling-funding,19897/)
GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR
QuoteWASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and† millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.
Ever notice how so many Republicontins vote so consistently against learning, knowledge and intellect? Must be a genetic thing.