When you have a large failure like the ACA web site, the blame starts with the integrator which was Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They are the ones that split up the work to the contractors, identify requirement, and accept the finished software. If they fail at this there is no way the site will work properly. The contractors probably did not do a good job here, but even if they had the project would still fail with bad system integration.
A large number of lobbyist lobby the Obama Administration. The administration is responsible for the day to day running of the government. Many of the most contentious issues of today are being done through the admininstation the EPA (carbon tax), HHS (ACA implementation), etc. The names of lobbyist that were developed ignore this reality. Here are some names that reflect this reality.
From the article "Take the example of a Fox News employee, Joyce Evans, who tweeted the following to followers of the local Philadelphia station". She does not work for Fox News Channel, so calling her a Fox News Employee is bogus. If you are saying no one would misunderstand what was being claimed, I present Androgynous Cowherd and his comment Keywords Here which was a rant against Fox News. I also like the claim that I work for Fox News, because apparently no one else would care about blatant misrepresentation of the truth. I do not work for Fox News, but I do believe it is important to be accurate.
It truly saddens me that this blog has resorted to this level of misrepresentation. The story stands on its own as a dumb thing a news anchor did. This blog often makes good arguments about intellectual property, but now all that can be ignored since you are making claims in the blog post that imply something that is not true. The blog can now be lumped with numerous others out on the internet that either make false claims or false implications.
The Fox News claim here is bogus. It was FOX 29 in Philly. This has nothing to do with Fox News. I understand that words are being twisted here since Fox 29 News anchor can be described as Fox News employee, but it is misleading since Fox News is a well known brand. As for the person who fell for it and started denigrating Fox News. Who exactly is the propagandist? If it was an NBC 10 News Employee you would be fine with them being referred to a NBC News anchor and then a rant about how NBC News is biased and just propaganda?
Brian Roberts does not need to care about what the laws are since he politically connected. Obama has stopped by his house on several occasions when he was in Martha's Vineyard, he controls NBC, and he is a major political fund raiser. America is becoming a country where political connections are more important than accumulated earnings or the law.
He read the story as a bed time story to his kids. I agree that it is interesting to look at the copyright implications of this. In fact, it is interesting to look at the copyright of reading bed time stories to your kids when you are on the road. Copyright is broken and leads to all sorts of unjust outcomes. Lets put the Green Eggs and Ham story in context, it was a minuscule part of what he was talking about. It is kind of interesting that this is the tiny unimportant part of the speech is getting all the coverage.
You do realize that the Affordable Care Act, he was railing against is intended to fail. It is intended to be an unworkable combination of public and private bureaucracies that leads to the creation of a government run healthcare system. President Obama has implied that this public option was his preference, but the public was not ready for it.
Re: Re: Well, he could have read the Constitution; most in Congress NEED that.
You are claiming Drudge is a yellow journalist even though he does not write articles. He simply picks articles from other news sites to highlight and writes a short title that links to the article. I guess you like the news being controlled by a few gatekeepers that choose to highlight the articles that provide the narrative that they are pushing. I guess that you do not like to have to read articles that talk about things that challenge your beliefs.
What liberties are you willing to give up for a social safety net? Do you have the right not to purchase health insurance? Can you choose to smoke a cigarette? Do you have the right to drink a large soda? These are rights you may be giving up for universal health insurance not tied to risk. Our current health care costs are becoming tied to income not to risk, so there is no financial incentive for consumers to make good choices. To lower cost the government will either ban things it believes raises costs or heavily tax them.