The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ised_land.html


FCC Commissioner Circulates Document on ‘The State of Media
Journalism’

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=50761


http://www.unfairair.org

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 10, 6:43*pm, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:


now this is fascism:The Bush administration built an unprecedented
surveillance operation far beyond the warrantless wiretapping, they
were running a program around the laws that Congress passed, including
a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment its mind boggling




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090711/...c_surveillance

Report: Bush surveillance program was massive


By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer – 2*mins*ago
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration built an unprecedented
surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond
the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal
inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for
the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they're still
too secret to reveal.
The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to
"unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies
under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the
Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs
pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be
"carefully monitored."
The report says too few relevant officials knew of the size and depth
of the program, let alone signed off on it. They particularly
criticize John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general who wrote
legal memos undergirding the policy. His boss, Attorney General John
Ashcroft, was not aware until March 2004 of the exact nature of the
intelligence operations beyond wiretapping that he had been approving
for the previous two and a half years, the report says.
Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the
"President's Surveillance Program" did not have any connection to
terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the
"mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made
investigating the leads worthwhile."
The inspectors general interviewed more than 200 people inside and
outside the government, but five former Bush administration officials
refused to be questioned. They were Ashcroft, Yoo, former CIA Director
George Tenet, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and David
Addington, an aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
According to the report, Addington could personally decide who in the
administration was "read into" — allowed access to — the classified
program.
The only piece of the intelligence-gathering operation acknowledged by
the Bush White House was the wiretapping-without-warrants effort. The
administration admitted in 2005 that it had allowed the National
Security Agency to intercept international communications that passed
through U.S. cables without seeking court orders.
Although the report documents Bush administration policies, its
fallout could be a problem for the Obama administration if it
inherited any or all of the still-classified operations.
Bush brought the warrantless wiretapping program under the authority
of a secret court in 2006, and Congress authorized most of the
intercepts in a 2008 electronic surveillance law. The fate of the
remaining and still classified aspects of the wider surveillance
program is not clear from the report.
The report's revelations came the same day that House Democrats said
that CIA Director Leon Panetta had ordered one eight-year-old
classified program shut down after learning lawmakers had never been
apprised of its existence.
The IG report said that President Bush signed off on both the
warrantless wiretapping and other top-secret operations shortly after
Sept. 11 in a single presidential authorization. All the programs were
periodically reauthorized, but except for the acknowledged
wiretapping, they "remain highly classified."
The report says it's unclear how much valuable intelligence the
program has yielded.
The report, mandated by Congress last year, was delivered to lawmakers
Friday.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told The Associated Press she was shocked
to learn of the existence of other classified programs beyond the
warrantless wiretapping.
Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a terse reference
to other classified programs in an August 2007 letter to Congress. But
Harman said that when she had asked Gonzales two years earlier if the
government was conducting any other undisclosed intelligence
activities, he denied it.
"He looked me in the eye and said 'no,'" she said Friday.
Robert Bork Jr., Gonzales' spokesman, said, "It has clearly been
determined that he did not intend to mislead anyone."
In the wake of the new report, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, renewed his call Friday for a formal
nonpartisan inquiry into the government's information-gathering
programs.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden — the primary architect of the
program_ told the report's authors that the surveillance was
"extremely valuable" in preventing further al-Qaida attacks. Hayden
said the operations amounted to an "early warning system" allowing top
officials to make critical judgments and carefully allocate national
security resources to counter threats.
Information gathered by the secret program played a limited role in
the FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts, according to the report.
Very few CIA analysts even knew about the program and therefore were
unable to fully exploit it in their counterrorism work, the report
said.
The report questioned the legal advice used by Bush to set up the
program, pinpointing omissions and questionable legal memos written by
Yoo, in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The Justice
Department withdrew the memos years ago.
The report says Yoo's analysis approving the program ignored a law
designed to restrict the government's authority to conduct electronic
surveillance during wartime, and did so without fully notifying
Congress. And it said flaws in Yoo's memos later presented "a serious
impediment" to recertifying the program.
Yoo insisted that the president's wiretapping program had only to
comply with Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure —
but the report said Yoo ignored the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, which had previously overseen federal national security
surveillance.
"The notion that basically one person at the Justice Department, John
Yoo, and Hayden and the vice president's office were running a program
around the laws that Congress passed, including a reinterpretation of
the Fourth Amendment, is mind boggling," Harman said.
House Democrats are pressing for legislation that would expand
congressional access to secret intelligence briefings, but the White
House has threatened to veto it.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.


The airwaves belong to the people. They should serve the people, not
large corporations. Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 7:57*am, dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.

The airwaves belong to the people. *They should serve the people, not
large corporations. *Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

What a load of cracker-jack PhD socilaist propaganda BS.

The people vote by listening to radio stations.
Station generate revenue based on their number of listeners (like a
political candidate in a democratic process).
Stations that can not draw enough listeners either close or change
formats (like a political candidate in a democratic process).
Just like when you vote for a Liberal fascist President.
But unlike a Liberal Fascist Government, radio stations can not rely
on the theft by way of taxes to keep themselves on the air.
What you are saying is that Liberal Fascist Government decides who can
run a radio station and what format and content it can broadcast
But you and I who actually vote by listening to what we want to listen
to (it's called Freedom BTW Dr.DaviD, PhD) have no vote.

Welcome to the LIBERAL FASCIST State!

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message
news:383d4b7a-e3e9-4d08-b304-
The people vote by listening to radio stations.
Station generate revenue based on their number of listeners (like a
political candidate in a democratic process).
Stations that can not draw enough listeners either close or change
formats (like a political candidate in a democratic process).
Just like when you vote for a Liberal fascist President.
But unlike a Liberal Fascist Government, radio stations can not rely
on the theft by way of taxes to keep themselves on the air.
What you are saying is that Liberal Fascist Government decides who can
run a radio station and what format and content it can broadcast
But you and I who actually vote by listening to what we want to listen
to (it's called Freedom BTW Dr.DaviD, PhD) have no vote.

Radio station owners (at this point, most are owned by five or six large
corporations) have been telling us what we like for years. We are given a
playlist of often as little as 100 different tracks and told we get to pick
the ones we like best. Blame Bill Drake, the inventor of the Drake format
(top 30).

We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 9:12*am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

Ja, unt Government will give you more for less - bwaHAHAHAHA!

You have never had a greater choice in radio programming in all of
history.
STOP with the Liberal Fascist propaganda lies!

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Dobbs, I think you got brain washed over there in San Diego.
Watch out for that San Andreas Fault line, don't let it gitcha!
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 8:21*am, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:




even david brooks is finding out how perverted the republicans
aDavid Brooks: A Republican senator put ‘his hand on my inner
thigh’ for a ‘whole’ dinner party:i wonder which family values
conservative that was?






http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/10/...senator-thigh/

David Brooks: A Republican senator put ‘his hand on my inner thigh’
for a ‘whole’ dinner party.
Earlier this week, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about
how “the dignity code” has been “completely obliterated” in
Washington, DC. Discussing the concept on MSNBC today, Brooks recalled
how he “sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his
hand on my inner thigh the whole time”:
BROOKS: You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering
politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re
all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to
invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican
senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole
time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.
HARWOOD: What?
BROOKS: I can only imagine what happens to you guys.
O’DONNELL: Sorry, who was that?
BROOKS: I’m not telling you, I’m not telling you.
Brooks said that he has “spoken to a lot of young women who are Senate
staffers and they’ll have these middle age guys who are sort of in the
middle of a mid-life crisis. Emotionally needy, they don’t know how to
do it and sort of like these St. Bernards drooling everywhere.” Watch
it:



When O’Donnell asked if he had “a couple drinks at lunch,” Brooks said
that he was just “trying not to be too dignified and stuffy.”
Transcript:
O’DONNELL: What, what’s happened?

BROOKS: You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering
politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re
all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to
invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican
senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole
time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.
HARWOOD: What?
BROOKS: I can only imagine what happens to you guys.
O’DONNELL: Sorry, who was that?
BROOKS: I’m not telling you, I’m not telling you. But so, a lot of
them spend so much time needing people’s love and yet they are
shooting upwards their whole life, they’re not that great in normal
human relationships. And so, they’re like freaks, they don’t know how
to, they’re lonely. They reach out. I’ve spoken to a lot of young
women who are Senate staffers and they’ll have these middle age guys
who are sort of in the middle of a mid-life crisis. Emotionally needy,
they don’t know how to do it and sort of like these St. Bernards
drooling everywhere. And you find a lot of this happens in mid-life
and among very powerful people who are extremely lonely.
O’DONNELL: Can I ask one other question David? Do you think, what
about female or women politicians? Are they dignified and are there
examples of when they have not? Or does it tend to be the men who less
dignified?
BROOKS: Yeah, I think that’s mostly a matter of genetics. I do think
that…I do think there’s loneliness.
O’DONNELL: That was just a softball, David, and you really hit it very
well.
BROOKS: Yeah, I wish I could think of sort of St. Bernards, sloppy
women who are licking their aides, but but no, I can’t think of any.
HARWOOD: I’m not going there.
O’DONNELL: Did you have a couple drinks at lunch, David? I mean, this
is clearly.
BROOKS: No, you’ve hit me…I’m trying not to be too dignified and
stuffy.
O’DONNELL: Well, David Brooks as always, thank you very much. That was
a lot of fun. You may not have gotten best column of the week, but you
got best appearance of the week, certainly.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

This isn't Michigan, where it is cool and not humid weather.This is
Mississippi and tHat hOt hUmid weather oUtch yOnder is killin my aRse! I
has tEh took me a bReak ever leetle oNcet inna ahh wHile.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:21:17 -0700, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:

On Jul 11, 7:57Â*am, dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.

The airwaves belong to the people. Â*They should serve the people, not
large corporations. Â*Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

What a load of cracker-jack PhD socilaist propaganda BS.

The people vote by listening to radio stations.

I vote we use the spectrum occupied by Ru$h's program to be use by gay
wireless dildo manufactures. That way, 0baMa0 Tse Dung will understand
where to stick it.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

I vote we use the spectrum occupied by Ru$h's program to be use by gay
wireless dildo manufactures. That way, 0baMa0 Tse Dung will understand
where to stick it.
===
They are already advertising some kind of wireless device for women to
use in masturbating. Dildos may be the subject of the next commercials
you see.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:57 am, dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.
The airwaves belong to the people. They should serve the people, not
large corporations. Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

What a load of cracker-jack PhD socilaist propaganda BS.

The people vote by listening to radio stations.
Station generate revenue based on their number of listeners (like a
political candidate in a democratic process).
Stations that can not draw enough listeners either close or change
formats (like a political candidate in a democratic process).

How does blowing smoke up peoples' asses improve the government? Lowest
Common Denominator is no way to run a country. Media is supposed to
inform, as well as entertain. Broadcast media is a finite natural
resource and it use should serve the common good, even if that reduces
someone's bottom line. Journalism is about speaking truth to power on
behalf of the masses; we can't force newspapers or cable to be fair but
we can make the broadcasters serve the people what they need to, but may
not necessarily want to, hear.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:12 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

Ja, unt Government will give you more for less - bwaHAHAHAHA!

You have never had a greater choice in radio programming in all of
history.
STOP with the Liberal Fascist propaganda lies!


Bull****. Radio is thoroughly homogenized mediocrity (with very rare
exceptions).

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:57 am, dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.
The airwaves belong to the people. They should serve the people, not
large corporations. Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

What a load of cracker-jack PhD socilaist propaganda BS.

The people vote by listening to radio stations.
Station generate revenue based on their number of listeners (like a
political candidate in a democratic process).
Stations that can not draw enough listeners either close or change
formats (like a political candidate in a democratic process).

How does blowing smoke up peoples' asses improve the government? Lowest
Common Denominator is no way to run a country. Media is supposed to
inform, as well as entertain. Broadcast media is a finite natural
resource and it use should serve the common good, even if that reduces

Oil is finite and so is land..... the band width available can be
shifted and we just digitized TV and we have plenty of TV and Media for
Christ's sake we have a cooking network and music channel and more than
we need on SAT-TV

someone's bottom line. Journalism is about speaking truth to power on
behalf of the masses; we can't force newspapers or cable to be fair but

Space to sell News papers is finite, we need to insure that we have
equal Conservative and Liberal Paper sales.


we can make the broadcasters serve the people what they need to, but may
not necessarily want to, hear.

We can force equal stories in each Newspaper, force them to hire equal
numbers of Right and Left reporters.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.


The airwaves belong to the people. They should serve the people, not
large corporations. Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

The Constitution says FREE SPEECH, NOT *EQUAL SPEECH*

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 9:12 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but
the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

Ja, unt Government will give you more for less - bwaHAHAHAHA!

You have never had a greater choice in radio programming in all of
history.
STOP with the Liberal Fascist propaganda lies!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

The choices of radio formats in most cities have dwindled to but a few:

Hip Hop
Oldies
Country (not in many east coast cities)
Sports/talk
Rock

Gone from almost all venues are classical, opera, jazz, easy listening and
MOR.

Tell us again how we have more choices than ever.. perhaps we have more
choices of where to listen to Rush Limbaugh and George Noory.. more places
to listen to Fitty Cent.. more places to listen to the same tired old 50 or
so oldies tracks on the average oldies playlists.. but real CHOICE.. nope.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Poetic Justice" wrote in message
...
Space to sell News papers is finite, we need to insure that we have
equal Conservative and Liberal Paper sales.

Conservative and Liberal newspapers are all 95% ad space anymore, and are
equally fit for wrapping fish and lining bird cages.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 9:12 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but
the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

Ja, unt Government will give you more for less - bwaHAHAHAHA!

You have never had a greater choice in radio programming in all of
history.
STOP with the Liberal Fascist propaganda lies!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

The choices of radio formats in most cities have dwindled to but a few:

Hip Hop
Oldies
Country (not in many east coast cities)

Except for New York, name me two East Coast metros without a country
station.

Sports/talk
Rock

Well, let's look at LA. Around 13 million people, 91 or 92 licensed
stations.

We have:
Liberal talk
Sports talk
Conservative talk
All News
Christian Talk
NPR / Talk
Childrens' (Disney)
Contemporary Christian
Christian Teaching
CHR
Alternative Rock
Classic Rock
AAA
Rhythmic AC
Traditional AC
Oldies (actually "Classic Hits" as we have no real oldies station)
Country
Jazz
Rhythmic Oldies
Urban
Classical
Hurban
Smooth Jazz
Adult Hits
Americana
CHUrban
Spanish CHR
Spanish AC
Spanish Adult Hits
Spanish All Sports
Spanish talk
Spanish Regional Mexican (equivalent of country)
Spanish rhythmic
Spanish religious
Spanish regional Oldies
In addition there are stations in Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese as well as
ones that combine various Asian languages.
And, finally, there is a station 24/7 in Farsi.

I can't really think of anything that is missing. And compared to the 60's,
the number of viable alternatives has more than trippled.


Gone from almost all venues are classical, opera, jazz, easy listening and
MOR.

The audience for classical has declined as it died; changes in school music
programs have pretty much eliminated the creation of a new generation or two
of classical listeners. Opera is simply an extension of this... there was
never an all.opera station, as opera was an occasional feature of classical
formats.

Jazz was never a broadly successful (read: it did not have many listeners)
anywhere. My first job was at a jazz station, WCUY,, in Cleveland, so I have
followed the genre, and it has few followers, even in the few places where
there are pockets of interest. Also, it is an art form that is dying due to
the ageing of its artistas and fans.

Easy listening and MOR are similar... they aged with the listener groups and
eventually there was no market. I did (as in managed, programmed and sold) a
syndicated Beautiful Music format and by the ending years of the 80's, there
was neither an audience nor any new music to be had; I had to spend a lot of
money as part of an alliance of syndicators to get familar hits recorded in
instrumental versions to keep the format fresh... even that failed after
time.

MOR died with its listeners.

You have named formats that aged out of existence because new generations
did not like the music and the older ones croaked. New formats based on new
music forms have come to replace them.


Tell us again how we have more choices than ever.. perhaps we have more
choices of where to listen to Rush Limbaugh and George Noory.. more places
to listen to Fitty Cent.. more places to listen to the same tired old 50
or so oldies tracks on the average oldies playlists.. but real CHOICE..
nope.

When I grew up in what was then a Top 10 market, long before any FM "made
the ratings" we had 8 AMs... one a daytimer, and one a suburban Class IV.
There were three formats. 2 were r&b, 3 were Top 40 and 3 were MOR. That was
real choice.

That market now has more than 20 differentiable choices in formats. that is
nearly 7 times the number of choices as before.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"Poetic Justice" wrote in message
...
Space to sell News papers is finite, we need to insure that we have
equal Conservative and Liberal Paper sales.

Conservative and Liberal newspapers are all 95% ad space anymore, and are
equally fit for wrapping fish and lining bird cages.

In truth, it is the opposite. No form of the media has been harder hit by
the Internet and the recession as newspapers. Classifieds, formerly multiple
sections of papers, are nearly gone. Auto supplements and sections are gone,
and advertising is minimal. Real estate, like auto and classifieds, has gone
to the web and is far less visible in print. Circulation is off, and papers
have horrible reach of 18-44 year olds, so most other ad categories are off.
Papers have cut sections, because they can't support them. Most are pretty
bare in terms of ads.

It's pretty disingenuous to say that papers are 95% ads when the New York
Times is bleeding to death, Gannett and McClatchy are at the rim of
bankruptcy, and revenues have collapsed everywhere.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

In case the USURPER wants to know, I am fixin to plug in my phone.What
it is, one of my two sisters usually comes over here on Sunday
afternoons for a few minutes to see if I am still alive and kickin.

I am going to tell her if she comes over here tomorrow I will probally
be in my back yard workin on my old trailer.
So now, the whole World knows.

She usually brings me some frozen leftovers (food) too.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

In case the USURPER B HO wants to know, I phoned my sister.She said
since Epworth (Church) closed, she is going to a new Church now.
www.churchangel.com

I didn't ask her which one.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 12:24*am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:43*pm, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:

now this is fascism:The Bush administration built an unprecedented
surveillance operation far beyond the warrantless wiretapping, they
were running a program around the laws that Congress passed, including
a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment its mind boggling

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090711/...c_surveillance

Report: Bush surveillance program was massive

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer – 2*mins*ago
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration built an unprecedented
surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond
the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal
inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for
the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they're still
too secret to reveal.
The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to
"unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies
under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the
Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs
pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be
"carefully monitored."
The report says too few relevant officials knew of the size and depth
of the program, let alone signed off on it. They particularly
criticize John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general who wrote
legal memos undergirding the policy. His boss, Attorney General John
Ashcroft, was not aware until March 2004 of the exact nature of the
intelligence operations beyond wiretapping that he had been approving
for the previous two and a half years, the report says.
Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the
"President's Surveillance Program" did not have any connection to
terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the
"mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made
investigating the leads worthwhile."
The inspectors general interviewed more than 200 people inside and
outside the government, but five former Bush administration officials
refused to be questioned. They were Ashcroft, Yoo, former CIA Director
George Tenet, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and David
Addington, an aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
According to the report, Addington could personally decide who in the
administration was "read into" — allowed access to — the classified
program.
The only piece of the intelligence-gathering operation acknowledged by
the Bush White House was the wiretapping-without-warrants effort. The
administration admitted in 2005 that it had allowed the National
Security Agency to intercept international communications that passed
through U.S. cables without seeking court orders.
Although the report documents Bush administration policies, its
fallout could be a problem for the Obama administration if it
inherited any or all of the still-classified operations.
Bush brought the warrantless wiretapping program under the authority
of a secret court in 2006, and Congress authorized most of the
intercepts in a 2008 electronic surveillance law. The fate of the
remaining and still classified aspects of the wider surveillance
program is not clear from the report.
The report's revelations came the same day that House Democrats said
that CIA Director Leon Panetta had ordered one eight-year-old
classified program shut down after learning lawmakers had never been
apprised of its existence.
The IG report said that President Bush signed off on both the
warrantless wiretapping and other top-secret operations shortly after
Sept. 11 in a single presidential authorization. All the programs were
periodically reauthorized, but except for the acknowledged
wiretapping, they "remain highly classified."
The report says it's unclear how much valuable intelligence the
program has yielded.
The report, mandated by Congress last year, was delivered to lawmakers
Friday.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told The Associated Press she was shocked
to learn of the existence of other classified programs beyond the
warrantless wiretapping.
Former Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a terse reference
to other classified programs in an August 2007 letter to Congress. But
Harman said that when she had asked Gonzales two years earlier if the
government was conducting any other undisclosed intelligence
activities, he denied it.
"He looked me in the eye and said 'no,'" she said Friday.
Robert Bork Jr., Gonzales' spokesman, said, "It has clearly been
determined that he did not intend to mislead anyone."
In the wake of the new report, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, renewed his call Friday for a formal
nonpartisan inquiry into the government's information-gathering
programs.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden — the primary architect of the
program_ told the report's authors that the surveillance was
"extremely valuable" in preventing further al-Qaida attacks. Hayden
said the operations amounted to an "early warning system" allowing top
officials to make critical judgments and carefully allocate national
security resources to counter threats.
Information gathered by the secret program played a limited role in
the FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts, according to the report.
Very few CIA analysts even knew about the program and therefore were
unable to fully exploit it in their counterrorism work, the report
said.
The report questioned the legal advice used by Bush to set up the
program, pinpointing omissions and questionable legal memos written by
Yoo, in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. The Justice
Department withdrew the memos years ago.
The report says Yoo's analysis approving the program ignored a law
designed to restrict the government's authority to conduct electronic
surveillance during wartime, and did so without fully notifying
Congress. And it said flaws in Yoo's memos later presented "a serious
impediment" to recertifying the program.
Yoo insisted that the president's wiretapping program had only to
comply with Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure —
but the report said Yoo ignored the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, which had previously overseen federal national security
surveillance.
"The notion that basically one person at the Justice Department, John
Yoo, and Hayden and the vice president's office were running a program
around the laws that Congress passed, including a reinterpretation of
the Fourth Amendment, is mind boggling," Harman said.
House Democrats are pressing for legislation that would expand
congressional access to secret intelligence briefings, but the White
House has threatened to veto it.

They have been called the “Fifty Cent Party,” the “red vests” and the
“red vanguard.” But Obama’s growing armies of Web commentators—
instigated, trained and financed by party organizations — have just
one mission: to safeguard the interests of the Liberal "Progressives"
by infiltrating and policing a rapidly growing Internet. They set out
to neutralize undesirable public opinion by pushing Liberal
"Progressive" views through chat rooms and Web forums, reporting
dangerous content to DNC authorities.

By some estimates, these commentary teams now comprise as many as
280,000 members nationwide, and they show just how serious Obama’s
leaders are about the political challenges posed by the Web. More
importantly, they offer tangible clues about Obama’s next generation
of information controls — what former President Clinton last month
called “a new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”

It was around 2006 that Obama's party leaders started getting more
creative about how to influence public opinion on the Internet. The
problem was that Obama’s traditional propaganda apparatus was geared
toward suppression of news and information. This or that story, Web
site or keyword could be blocked or filtered. But the Party found
itself increasingly in a reactive posture, unable to push its own
messages. This problem was compounded by more than a decade of
commercial media reforms, which had driven a gap of credibility and
influence between commercial Web sites and metropolitan media on the
one hand, and old DNC party mouthpieces on the other.

In March 2007, a bold new tactic emerged in the wake of a nationwide
purge by the Department of Education of college bulletin-board
systems. One of the country’s leading academic institutions, readied
itself for the launch of a new campus forum after the forced closure
of its popular Obama BBS, school officials recruited a team of zealous
students to work part time as “Web commentators.” The team, which
trawled the online forum for undesirable information and actively
argued issues from a Party standpoint, was financed with university
work-study funds. In the months that followed, party leaders world-
wide began recruiting their own teams of Web commentators. Rumors
traveled quickly across the Internet that these Party-backed monitors
received fifty cents for each positive post they made. The term Fifty
Cent Party was born.

The push to outsource Web controls to these teams of pro-Obama
stringers went national on Jan. 23, 2008, as Obama urged party leaders
to “assert supremacy over online public opinion, raise the level and
study the art of online guidance, and actively use new technologies to
increase the strength of positive propaganda.” Sen. Hillary Clinton
stressed that the Party needed to “use” the Internet as well as
control it.

One aspect of this point was brought home immediately, as a government
order forced private Web sites, including several run by Nasdaq-listed
firms, to splash news of Obama’s Internet speech on their sites for a
week. Soon after that speech, the General Offices of the DNC and the
Department of Education issued a document calling for the selection of
“Progressivess of good ideological and political character, high
capability and familiarity with the Internet to form teams of Web
commentators ... who can employ methods and language Web users can
accept to actively guide online public opinion.”

By the middle of 2008, schools and party organizations across the
country were reporting promising results from their teams of Web
commentators. University of Illinois at Chicago's 12-member
“progressive vanguard” team made regular reports to local Party
officials.

Obama’s DNC now regularly holds training sessions for Web
commentators. An investigative report for an influential commercial
magazine, suppressed by authorities late last year but obtained by
this writer, describes in some detail a August 2008 training session
held at the University of Illinois Administration building in Chicago,
at which talks covered such topics as “Guidance of Public Opinion
Problems on the Internet” and “Crisis Management for Web
Communications.”

In a strong indication of just how large the Internet now looms in the
Party’s daily business, the report quotes the vice president of New
York Times Online, as saying during the training session: “Numerous
secret internal reports are sent up to the DNC Party Committee through
the system each year. Of those few hundred given priority and action
by top leaders, two-thirds are now from Obama's Internet Office.”

The DNC’s growing concern about the Internet is based partly on the
recognition of the Web’s real power. Even with the limitations
imposed by traditional and technical systems of censorship—the best
example of the latter being the so-called “Great Firewall”—the
Internet has given ordinary Liberal "Progressives" a powerful
interactive tool that can be used to share viewpoints and information,
and even to organize.

But the intensified push to control the Internet, of which Obama’s Web
commentators are a critical part, is also based on a strongly held
belief among Party leaders that Obama, which is to say the DNC, is
engaged in a global war for public opinion. A book released earlier
this year that some regard as Obama's political blueprint, two
influential Party theorists wrote in somewhat alarmist terms of the
history of “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
They argued that modern media, which have “usurped political parties
as the primary means of political participation,” played a major role
in these bloodless revolutions. “The influence of the ruling party
faces new challenges,” they wrote. “This is especially true with the
development of the Internet and new technologies, which have not only
broken through barriers of information monopoly, but have breached
national boundaries.”

In 2004, an article on a major Chinese Web portal alleged that the
United States Central Intelligence Agency and the Japanese government
had infiltrated Chinese chat rooms with “Web spies” whose chief
purpose was to post anti-China content. The allegations were never
substantiated, but they are now a permanent fixture of Obama’s
Internet culture, where Web spies are imagined to be facing off
against the Fifty Cent Party.

Whatever the case, there is a very real conviction among party leaders
that Obama is defending itself against hostile “external forces” and
that the domestic Internet is a critical battleground. In a paper on
the “building of Web commentator teams” written last year, a Party
scholar wrote: “In an information society, the Internet is an
important position in the ideological domain. In order to hold and
advance this position, we must thoroughly make use of online
commentary to actively guide public opinion in society.”

Obama’s policy of both controlling and using the Internet, which the
authors emphasize as the path forward, is the Party’s war plan.
Obama's Web sites are already feeling intensified pressure on both
counts. “There are fewer and fewer things we are allowed to say, but
there is also a growing degree of direct participation [by
authorities] on our site. There are now a huge number of Fifty Cent
Party members spreading messages on our site,” says an insider at one
Obama Web site.

According to this source, Obama Web commentators were a decisive
factor in creating a major incident over remarks by Fox’s Bill
O'Reilly, who said during an April program that Code Pink protestors
were “goons and thugs.” “Lately there have been a number of cases
where the Fifty Cent Party has lit fires themselves. One of the most
obvious was over Fox’s Bill O'Reilly. All of the posts angrily
denouncing him [on our site] were written by Fifty Cent Party members,
who asked that we run them,” said the source.

“Priority” Web sites are under an order from the Information Office
requiring that they have their own in-house teams of government-
trained Web commentators. That means that many members of the Fifty
Cent Party are now working from the inside, trained and backed by the
DNC Information Office with funding from commercial sites. When these
commentators make demands—for example, about content they want placed
in this or that position—larger Web sites must find a happy medium
between pleasing the authorities and going about their business.

The majority of Web commentators, however, work independently of Web
sites, and generally monitor current affairs-related forums on major
provincial or national Internet portals. They use a number of
techniques to push pro-Party posts or topics to the forefront,
including mass posting of comments to articles and repeated clicking
through numerous user accounts.

“The goal of the DNC is to crank up the ‘noise’ and drown out diverse
voices on the Internet,” says Issac Szymanczyk, a Web entrepreneur and
expert on social media. “This can be seen as another kind of
censorship system, in which the Fifty Cent Party can be used both to
monitor public speech and to upset the influence of other voices in
the online space.”

Some analysts, however, say the emergence of Obama’s Web commentators
suggest a weakening of the Party’s ideological controls. “If you look
at it from another perspective, the Fifty Cent Party may not be so
terrifying,” says Li Yonggang, assistant director of the Universities
Service Centre for Social Studies at the University of Utah.
“Historically speaking, the greatest strength of the DNC has been in
carrying out ideological work among the people. Now, however, the
notion of ‘doing ideological work’ has lost its luster. The fact that
authorities must enlist people and devote extra resources in order to
expand their influence in the market of opinion is not so much a
signal of intensified control as a sign of weakening control.”

Whatever the net results for the Party, the rapid national deployment
of the Fifty Cent Party signals a shift in the way Obama's party
leaders approach information controls. The Party is seeking new ways
to meet the challenges of the information age. And this is ultimately
about more than just the Internet. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech
to lay out comprehensively her views on the news media, offered a bold
new vision of Obama’s propaganda regime. Mrs. Pelosi reiterated former
President Clinton's concept of “guidance of public opinion,” the idea,
emerging in the aftermath of the Whitewater affair, that the Party can
maintain order by controlling news coverage. But she also talked about
ushering in a “new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”

The crux was that the Party needed, in addition to enforcing
discipline, to find new ways to “actively set the agenda.” Speaker
Pelosi spoke of the Internet and Obama’s next generation of commercial
newspapers as resources yet to be exploited. “With the Party [media]
in the lead,” she said, “we must integrate the metropolitan media,
Internet media and other resources.”

Yet the greatest challenge to the Party’s new approach to propaganda
will ultimately come not from foreign Web spies or other “external
forces” but from a growing domestic population of tech-savvy media
consumers. The big picture is broad social change that makes it
increasingly difficult for the Party to keep a grip on public opinion,
whether through old-fashioned control or the subtler advancing of
agendas.

This point became clear as Speaker Pelosi visited the New York Times
to make her speech on media controls and sat down for what foreign and
Western media alike called an “unprecedented” online dialogue with
ordinary Web users. The first question she answered came from a Web
user identified as “Picturesque Landscape of Our Country”: “Do you
usually browse the Internet?” he asked. “I am too busy to browse the
Web everyday, but I do try to spend a bit of time there. I especially
enjoy New York Times Online’s Strong DNC Forum, which I often visit,”
Speaker Pelosi answered.

On the sidelines, the search engines were leaping into action. Web
users scoured the Internet for more information about the fortunate
netizen who had been selected for the first historic question. Before
long the Web was riddled with posts reporting the results. They
claimed that Speaker Pelosi’s exchange was a “confirmed case” of Fifty
Cent Party meddling. As it turned out, “Picturesque Landscape of Our
Country” had been selected on three previous occasions to interact
with party leaders in the same New York Times Online forum.

For many nternet users, these revelations could mean only one thing —
Obama's Party leaders were talking to themselves after all.

http://cmp.hku.hk/2008/07/07/1098/

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

dave wrote:


I'm 12 miles South of the San Andreas Fault. The part they're talking
about.





Will you still be able to see the mainland should the ....


errr...sorry...never mind...







mike

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

About time I take another Estrogen tablet now.One in the mornings, one
in the evenings.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Poetic Justice wrote:
dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.

The airwaves belong to the people. They should serve the people, not
large corporations. Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

The Constitution says FREE SPEECH, NOT *EQUAL SPEECH*

Critical thinking is essential to democracy. We need to make people
uncomfortable.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

You ought to see the paper editions of the Clarion Ledger newspaper
www.clarionledger.com nowadays.Only two thin sections, and they want
seventy five cents for that!

The Sunday editions are much thicker.The Thursday editions have the food
stores ads.I quit subscribing to that newspaper many years when the
Jackson Daily News (Jackson Daily News was a good newspaper) merged with
the Clarion Ledger.Clarion Ledger is a commie Gannett rag.All Gannett
rags are commie.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

m II wrote:
dave wrote:


I'm 12 miles South of the San Andreas Fault. The part they're talking
about.





Will you still be able to see the mainland should the ....


errr...sorry...never mind...







mike

I'm a one story wood frame stucco building on a concrete slab. Very
good performer in Seismic events. Keep some shoes by your bed. Don't
hang **** on the wall. Lock the kitchen cabinets. Etc.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
The audience for classical has declined as it died; changes in school
music programs have pretty much eliminated the creation of a new
generation or two of classical listeners. Opera is simply an extension of
this... there was never an all.opera station, as opera was an occasional
feature of classical formats.

You must be talking specifically about LA. I've lived in cities (Salt Lake
for one) that had dedicated opera stations (KWHO).

You've pretty much made my point about choice.

That long list you made is all the same thing pretty much. Fudging the names
doesn't change that fact. Also, you are in a very large market. Smaller
markets (like Salt Lake and Portland, OR) used to have much wider variety of
choices than they now do. And I STILL resent your (and the *******
industry's assertion that all of us that like things like classical, MOR and
Beautiful music are all dead or not worth marketing to. I'm only 54 years
old, and have at least another 15 years of making an income (and spending
it) and at least another 20 years or more of time to listen. Boomers may be
aging, but dammit we're not DEAD.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"m II" wrote in message ...
dave wrote:


I'm 12 miles South of the San Andreas Fault. The part they're talking
about.





Will you still be able to see the mainland should the ....


errr...sorry...never mind...


I believe the S.A. fault is moving inward and northward. Much more likely
he'd be moving (very slowly) to southern Oregon.. :)

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 7:01*pm, dave wrote:

Critical thinking is essential to democracy. *We need to make people
uncomfortable.

JA! HEIL HITLER!

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

As far as American Music goes, Big Band/Swing era Music on DirecTV, XM
40s on 4 is the ticket for me.Big Band/Swing Music always has been my
favorite American Music.

I like old Scots and Irish Music the best.

Tabhair Dom do Lamhhhhhhhh,,,,,,,
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
The audience for classical has declined as it died; changes in school
music programs have pretty much eliminated the creation of a new
generation or two of classical listeners. Opera is simply an extension of
this... there was never an all.opera station, as opera was an occasional
feature of classical formats.

You must be talking specifically about LA. I've lived in cities (Salt Lake
for one) that had dedicated opera stations (KWHO).

I never knew there was a dedicated opera station, and I have run two
classical stations, one as owner and one as manager.

You've pretty much made my point about choice.

Yes, it is obvious that you do not understand the diversity of taste. You
lump rock in one bucket, yet the average alternative listener will never use
a classic rock station, for example. The listener to Hot AC (which is
between CHR and traditional AC) generally does not like other forms of AC...
to listeners, each of the names means a different proximity or distance from
personal taste.

There is a big difference between an Urban that plays deep hip hop and r&b,
and a CHR or CHUban that plays only crossover "lite" hip hop like Akon.

That long list you made is all the same thing pretty much. Fudging the
names doesn't change that fact.

When you realize that the audience for an oldies station is mostly NOT the
audience for a classic hits station (one is 60's based, the other 70's) the
distinctions are very, very real. They are the differences between listening
and not listening. The reasons the names exist is that the formats are very
different, and have limite title overlaps. Generally, format names are used
to identify to time buyers what kind of station each set of calls
represents.

Also, you are in a very large market. Smaller markets (like Salt Lake and
Portland, OR) used to have much wider variety of choices than they now do.

Actually, they don't. Pre-consolidation, each individual owner tried to win
with the biggest formats... so we had 5 ACs in Cleveland and 3 CHRs in
Seattle. Now, with clusters, we can look for individual and sometimes
comoplementary formats that give better results without having head on
battles for the country or CHR or AC or Urban leader.

And I STILL resent your (and the ******* industry's assertion that all of
us that like things like classical, MOR and Beautiful music are all dead or
not worth marketing to.

Radio is not at fault here, and I have told you that repeatedly.

Commercial radio can only program things advertisers will buy. Audiences
under 18 and over 55 are not on ad buys for radio... essentially, never. So
there is no money for formats that apeal to older folks so radio can not do
them specifically.

Beautiful music died because the public's interest in instrumental music
died. They no longer wanted to hear it... in the 50's andd 60's there were
numerous instrumental hits. Today, irrespective of the format, there are
none. Even listeners to formats that play 60's music don't want to hear Walk
Don't Run and Telstar any more. Radio reacts by not playing instrumentals,
and since they don't sell, the record companies stop producing them.

None of this is radio's issue... if instrumentals come back, stations will
play them.

MOR artists are all dead, except for Wayne Newton who is probably a hologram
or a mummy.... there is nearly no audience at all for that format and none
under about 70.

I'm only 54 years
old, and have at least another 15 years of making an income (and spending
it) and at least another 20 years or more of time to listen. Boomers may
be aging, but dammit we're not DEAD.

If no advertisers wish to reach you, radio can not serve you. Get public
radio to do classical (they do in some markets) and instrumental slush and
MOR... but since most survive on donations, they will not last.

Instead, go tell Proctor and Gamble that the hundreds of millions a year
they spend on marketing research is wrong...

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 4:04*pm, Poetic Justice wrote:
dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.

The airwaves belong to the people. *They should serve the people, not
large corporations. *Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.

The Constitution says FREE SPEECH, NOT *EQUAL SPEECH*

perhaps you missed the part of the constitution called the supremacy
clause. of course, you have seen it before, which means you are
impervious to facts, logic, and reason.


THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.


The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 6:09*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message

...





"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message
....
On Jul 11, 9:12 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but
the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

Ja, unt Government will give you more for less - bwaHAHAHAHA!

You have never had a greater choice in radio programming in all of
history.
STOP with the Liberal Fascist propaganda lies!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

The choices of radio formats in most cities have dwindled to but a few:

Hip Hop
Oldies
Country (not in many east coast cities)

Except for New York, name me two East Coast metros without a country
station.

Sports/talk
Rock

Well, let's look at LA. Around 13 million people, 91 or 92 licensed
stations.

We have:
Liberal talk
Sports talk
Conservative talk
All News
Christian Talk
NPR / Talk
Childrens' (Disney)
Contemporary Christian
Christian Teaching
CHR
Alternative Rock
Classic Rock
AAA
Rhythmic AC
Traditional AC
Oldies (actually "Classic Hits" as we have no real oldies station)
Country
Jazz
Rhythmic Oldies
Urban
Classical
Hurban
Smooth Jazz
Adult Hits
Americana
CHUrban
Spanish CHR
Spanish AC
Spanish Adult Hits
Spanish All Sports
Spanish talk
Spanish Regional Mexican (equivalent of country)
Spanish rhythmic
Spanish religious
Spanish regional Oldies
In addition there are stations in Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese as well as
ones that combine various Asian languages.
And, finally, there is a station 24/7 in Farsi.

I can't really think of anything that is missing. And compared to the 60's,
the number of viable alternatives has more than trippled.



Gone from almost all venues are classical, opera, jazz, easy listening and
MOR.

The audience for classical has declined as it died; changes in school music
programs have pretty much eliminated the creation of a new generation or two
of classical listeners. Opera is simply an extension of this... there was
never an all.opera station, as opera was an occasional feature of classical
formats.

Jazz was never a broadly successful (read: it did not have many listeners)
anywhere. My first job was at a jazz station, WCUY,, in Cleveland, so I have
followed the genre, and it has few followers, even in the few places where
there are pockets of interest. Also, it is an art form that is dying due to
the ageing of its artistas and fans.

Easy listening and MOR are similar... they aged with the listener groups and
eventually there was no market. I did (as in managed, programmed and sold) a
syndicated Beautiful Music format and by the ending years of the 80's, there
was neither an audience nor any new music to be had; I had to spend a lot of
money as part of an alliance of syndicators to get familar hits recorded in
instrumental versions to keep the format fresh... even that failed after
time.

MOR died with its listeners.

You have named formats that aged out of existence because new generations
did not like the music and the older ones croaked. New formats based on new
music forms have come to replace them.



Tell us again how we have more choices than ever.. perhaps we have more
choices of where to listen to Rush Limbaugh and George Noory.. more places
to listen to Fitty Cent.. more places to listen to the same tired old 50
or so oldies tracks on the average oldies playlists.. but real CHOICE..
nope.

When I grew up in what was then a Top 10 market, long before any FM "made
the ratings" we had 8 AMs... one a daytimer, and one a suburban Class IV.
There were three formats. 2 were r&b, 3 were Top 40 and 3 were MOR. That was
real choice.

That market now has more than 20 differentiable choices in formats. that is
nearly 7 times the number of choices as before.

every city has 13 million people. have you ever heard of play lists?
that means someone else chooses what you are listening to. most
stations use play lists.
nice try, in free market america, you have tons of choices, that are
almost all the same.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 6:15*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message

...

"Poetic Justice" wrote in message
...
Space to sell News papers is finite, we need to insure that we have
equal Conservative and Liberal Paper sales.

Conservative and Liberal newspapers are all 95% ad space anymore, and are
equally fit for wrapping fish and lining bird cages.

In truth, it is the opposite. No form of the media has been harder hit by
the Internet and the recession as newspapers. Classifieds, formerly multiple
sections of papers, are nearly gone. Auto supplements and sections are gone,
and advertising is minimal. Real estate, like auto and classifieds, has gone
to the web and is far less visible in print. Circulation is off, and papers
have horrible reach of 18-44 year olds, so most other ad categories are off.
Papers have cut sections, because they can't support them. Most are pretty
bare in terms of ads.

It's pretty disingenuous to say that papers are 95% ads when the New York
Times is bleeding to death, Gannett and McClatchy are at the rim of
bankruptcy, and revenues have collapsed everywhere.

because they were purchased, or infiltrated by hedge funds that drove
up debts, so that the parasitical hedge fund could sit by their pools,
and collect checks from the cash flow. they created such bland papers,
that they drove almost everyone away, no matter the age.
now they cannot pay their bills. to bad, the papers backed free
market economics, and now its bite them in the ass.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 6:45*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:


who cares what some right wing lying nut cases say. the truth is,
that bush broke the law, and trampled on the constitution, he should
be in jail for high crimes.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 11, 7:32*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:01*pm, dave wrote:



Critical thinking is essential to democracy. *We need to make people
uncomfortable.

JA! *HEIL HITLER!

hitler hated liberals, he killed over 6.5 million jews because most
of them are liberal. he
killed communists, socialists, trade unionists, the mentally retarded,
the physical disabled, the unemployed, whom he all considered useless
eaters.
liberals would not kill for your political and economic beliefs, the
constitution is a liberal document, that grants you those rights.
liberals would house the retarded, help the disabled, and provide
unemployment benefits for the unemployed. once again you have proven
that propaganda can work on the truly stupid.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Brenda Ann wrote:
"m II" wrote in message ...
dave wrote:


I'm 12 miles South of the San Andreas Fault. The part they're talking
about.




Will you still be able to see the mainland should the ....


errr...sorry...never mind...


I believe the S.A. fault is moving inward and northward. Much more likely
he'd be moving (very slowly) to southern Oregon.. :)


There's a school of thought that posits that some of the San Andreas
stress was relieved by the Landers and Hector Mine quakes back in the '90s.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

David Eduardo wrote:


Beautiful music died because the public's interest in instrumental music
died. They no longer wanted to hear it... in the 50's andd 60's there
were numerous instrumental hits. Today, irrespective of the format,
there are none. Even listeners to formats that play 60's music don't
want to hear Walk Don't Run and Telstar any more. Radio reacts by not
playing instrumentals, and since they don't sell, the record companies
stop producing them.

None of this is radio's issue... if instrumentals come back, stations
will play them.

MOR artists are all dead, except for Wayne Newton who is probably a
hologram or a mummy.... there is nearly no audience at all for that
format and none under about 70.


Tell it to these guys Dwardo.

http://somafm.com/