Exactly. AOL was a major proponent of the Child Online Privacy Protection Act. This law led to the shutdown of pretty much every single children's website almost overnight. You know what didn't get shut down? The AOL Kids area. Because the law was drafted in such a way that it didn't apply to the AOL Kids area. :-/
Even IF that were all entirely correct (which it is not) it pales in comparison to:
A known Russian asset as the NSA.
A leading critic of the EPA at the head of the EPA.
A department of the interior staffed by ex-lobbyests who are working hard to roll back all the protections preventing oil companies from drilling on national preserves.
Chronic use of private jets on the public dime.
$31,000 dining set at HUD.
NUMEROUS violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
Stacking the judiciary with unqualified judges (some of whom have never even argued a case) who happen to be related to Trump cronies.
Twisting the law to justify separating hundreds (if not thousands) of children from their parents.
** And then losing those children.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
In ANY OTHER administration, any ONE of these scandals (including the dining set) would be the "scandal of the year". In this administration it is just business as usual.
During the Bush administration I watched a fair amount of Fox News and while I remember it being much more pro-Bush I don't remember thinking it was loony tunes compared to CNN or vice versa.
Around the time Obama entered office I pretty much stopped watching TV altogether. I still read the news but I tried to steer clear of CNN (I can't remember why). BBC became my news source of choice.
I started paying attention to political news just as the political silly season started ramping up in 2015. To make a long post short I was pretty shocked by the divergence between Fox and CNN. You could no longer watch both and get a clear view of what was going on. It was like they were reporting from different dimensions.
I still enjoy Fox's science news. But their political news is bat****.
He writes a regular column for "The Atlantic" and does two weekly podcasts (Make No Law & All the President's Lawyers), Too bad you're limiting himself to his blog.
My grandfather had one of the few working phones after Hurricane Hugo (1989). People came from miles around to call their relatives out of town and out of state to let them know they were safe.
Something I feel obligated to point out though is that newspapers are dying. I do tech support for a large newspaper company in the US. Most of the papers are running on a skeleton crew. For many, fact checkers are a thing of the past.
It's so bad that circulation is now called "audience development".
Most editors do their best to hold the line on integrity. But when you are trying to do so much with so little, shit gets through.
On the other hand, this is a Murdoch Property and they are known to be ethically challenged.
This isn't an impossible scenario, but the pressure would have to come from real high. Like Board of Directors level. In the US, if a government official went to an editor in chief and attempted to pressure them into publishing something they didn't want to the government official would probably see an exposé published about them instead.
>"we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government."
I'm not even going to try defending this. Even in the United States, even at the poor, demoralized, paper company I work for, shit like this would never fly.
No, this is a bad thing. People are having their lives and their livelihoods ruined by this crap. Running a small business is hard enough. This will only make it harder.
This is a bad thing. The sooner this scam is shut down, the better.
Re:
Exactly. AOL was a major proponent of the Child Online Privacy Protection Act. This law led to the shutdown of pretty much every single children's website almost overnight. You know what didn't get shut down? The AOL Kids area. Because the law was drafted in such a way that it didn't apply to the AOL Kids area. :-/
Dude are YOU asleep?
Even IF that were all entirely correct (which it is not) it pales in comparison to:
- A known Russian asset as the NSA.
- A leading critic of the EPA at the head of the EPA.
- A department of the interior staffed by ex-lobbyests who are working hard to roll back all the protections preventing oil companies from drilling on national preserves.
- Chronic use of private jets on the public dime.
- $31,000 dining set at HUD.
- NUMEROUS violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
- Stacking the judiciary with unqualified judges (some of whom have never even argued a case) who happen to be related to Trump cronies.
- Twisting the law to justify separating hundreds (if not thousands) of children from their parents.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In ANY OTHER administration, any ONE of these scandals (including the dining set) would be the "scandal of the year". In this administration it is just business as usual.** And then losing those children.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
During the Bush administration I watched a fair amount of Fox News and while I remember it being much more pro-Bush I don't remember thinking it was loony tunes compared to CNN or vice versa. Around the time Obama entered office I pretty much stopped watching TV altogether. I still read the news but I tried to steer clear of CNN (I can't remember why). BBC became my news source of choice. I started paying attention to political news just as the political silly season started ramping up in 2015. To make a long post short I was pretty shocked by the divergence between Fox and CNN. You could no longer watch both and get a clear view of what was going on. It was like they were reporting from different dimensions. I still enjoy Fox's science news. But their political news is bat****.
Re: Re: Re:
He writes a regular column for "The Atlantic" and does two weekly podcasts (Make No Law & All the President's Lawyers), Too bad you're limiting himself to his blog.
Re: The only way to handle this...
Will diners be able to take leftovers home in tupperware?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My grandfather had one of the few working phones after Hurricane Hugo (1989). People came from miles around to call their relatives out of town and out of state to let them know they were safe.
The entire bill was waived.
Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Plenty of copyright fraud in the Prenda cases.
Re:
I think you mean "yorkie" Chihuahuas don't think twice about biting people.
Re: Re: Best Propaganda Money Can Buy
Something I feel obligated to point out though is that newspapers are dying. I do tech support for a large newspaper company in the US. Most of the papers are running on a skeleton crew. For many, fact checkers are a thing of the past.
It's so bad that circulation is now called "audience development".
Most editors do their best to hold the line on integrity. But when you are trying to do so much with so little, shit gets through.
On the other hand, this is a Murdoch Property and they are known to be ethically challenged.
Re: Re: Best Propaganda Money Can Buy
This isn't an impossible scenario, but the pressure would have to come from real high. Like Board of Directors level. In the US, if a government official went to an editor in chief and attempted to pressure them into publishing something they didn't want to the government official would probably see an exposé published about them instead.
Re: Re: Newspapers have been known to lie on their own initative
Good point.
Oh dear lord...
>"we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government."
I'm not even going to try defending this. Even in the United States, even at the poor, demoralized, paper company I work for, shit like this would never fly.
And with this...
I'm back to my original "lies on their own initiative" theory.
Newspapers have been known to lie on their own initative
I would expect that if the government--any government--was behind this article they would have ensured that their "sources" used the right vocabulary.
Message for Ms. Mills
Sweetie, I'm girl. You're a *itch.
you don't happen to have a link to that post, do you?
Re: Re:
I'd say Hansmeier is lawful evil. He operates within the law (mostly) but exploits it to his own ends.
Re: Awesome news!
No, this is a bad thing. People are having their lives and their livelihoods ruined by this crap. Running a small business is hard enough. This will only make it harder.
This is a bad thing. The sooner this scam is shut down, the better.
Re: Post Script?
Nah, a much better P.S. would be:
Please consider the environment before printing this and don't forget to bite me.
Re:
Just wait until O'Kelly rules. Its going to be ugly.