This is a good place to drop general and weird news, entertainment, and general show prep material that might be interesting to air talent or producers. Hot dog threads ALWAYS welcome.
A new study argues that July 4th celebrations may not be as innocent as they seem - at least from the democratic perspective.
According to the report, published by Harvard University, July 4th-themed festivities (defined by the study as fireworks, parades, political speeches, and barbecues) not only energize primarily Republicans, but also turn children into Republicans and increase GOP voter turnout.
Simply put: "Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party," says the report, which was written by Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.
Who needs all that icky patriotism among flag-waving hicks with fireworks that pollute the air anyways?
Sinclair Lewis wrote:When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
NEWS FLASH: IT'S ALREADY HERE !!
http://www.thenewoldiesshow.com WRSG Knights 91.5 Middlebourne-Sistersville, WV 5 PM Eastern Wednesdays (Repeats 7 AM Thursdays). 106.3 The Double Q, Farmington, Iowa, 10-11 AM Central time, Wednesdays. Buckeye Broadcasting, Cambridge, Ohio, 10 AM Eastern time Friday and other days on Live 365.com WBPS 101.9, Cambridge, Ohio
KZBZ 92.1, Williams, Arizona, Sundays.
DJSHOCKLEY wrote:
True indeed... When the "Conservative" controlled Supreme Court voted to allow Corporations to spend endless amounts of cash on the Manchurian Candidate of their choice we became the Corporate Fascist States of America..
I think we have bigger issues when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and said it is OK to pay a woman less than her male counter part for performing the same job.
The first step in a successful revolution is to defeat all competing revolutionaries.
DJSHOCKLEY wrote:
When the "Conservative" controlled Supreme Court voted to allow Corporations to spend endless amounts of cash on the Manchurian Candidate of their choice we became the Corporate Fascist States of America..
Yeah, letting people spend money the way they want to is gonna be the ruination of this place.
Well, I'm all for changing the way we finance campaigns, for sure. One of the big reasons Obama got elected was the tremendous corporate contributions he received, not to mention the massive funding he continues to receive from organizations like the teachers unions and such. Agreed, let's get the PEOPLE back in charge.
DJSHOCKLEY wrote:
True indeed... When the "Conservative" controlled Supreme Court voted to allow Corporations to spend endless amounts of cash on the Manchurian Candidate of their choice we became the Corporate Fascist States of America..
I think we have bigger issues when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and said it is OK to pay a woman less than her male counter part for performing the same job.
I think the Court just got confused there, thinking they were talking about "People of WalMart".
Dave Harman wrote:Well, I'm all for changing the way we finance campaigns, for sure. One of the big reasons Obama got elected was the tremendous corporate contributions he received, not to mention the massive funding he continues to receive from organizations like the teachers unions and such. Agreed, let's get the PEOPLE back in charge.
Since he's out to loot every corporation (except his lapdog crony capitalists) and family who makes over $250k per year, it will be interesting to see how much support he gets from that group compared to 2008... Back then, they wanted to believe that Obama actually stood for something more than despising them and everything they work for, and "inspiring" his sloth constituencies to do the same.
Recent SC decisions don't seem to make much sense on the surface, but I'm glad that they're still shying away from any rulings that could restrict constitutional rights -- even slightly.
Not perfect, but the alternative could be much worse.
Dave Harman wrote:Well, I'm all for changing the way we finance campaigns, for sure. One of the big reasons Obama got elected was the tremendous corporate contributions he received, not to mention the massive funding he continues to receive from organizations like the teachers unions and such. Agreed, let's get the PEOPLE back in charge.
Since he's out to loot every corporation (except his lapdog crony capitalists) and family who makes over $250k per year, it will be interesting to see how much support he gets from that group compared to 2008... Back then, they wanted to believe that Obama actually stood for something more than despising them and everything they work for, and "inspiring" his sloth constituencies to do the same.
Recent SC decisions don't seem to make much sense on the surface, but I'm glad that they're still shying away from any rulings that could restrict constitutional rights -- even slightly.
Not perfect, but the alternative could be much worse.
Do you get the irony of championing rights for companies? You do know they're not people? Would your stance go so far as to support gay marriage rights? Personal choice rights? Or do you draw the line when it actually comes to people?
I should've added "small business" instead of "corporation" to my previous comment.
I understand that corporations are not people, but are more less a faceless legal entity to do business under. They are no more real than their trademarks and logos.
However, corporations are usually made up of thousands of employed people who depend on them making money for their living. The SC decision might have been based on how much their free speech rights under that entity would be squelched if they are denied to voice positions that advance their corporation's agenda.
I'm not saying I personally agree with the decision. I'm just saying that I can see how they came to that conclusion.
As for gay marriage, the fact that this country is in dire financial trouble means that it's a distraction that I couldn't care less about at this time. What good are all of these "rights" if we no longer have a country in which to practice them?
The WalMart decision was a procedural issue. Attempt was made to bring a class action where the class consisted of all women employed by WalMart. Supreme Court found there were not enough issues in common to constitute a "class" under the Federal rules. Does not permit any of those women from filing individual discrimination claims.
Problem is that the lead plaintiff could have a valid claim based on the actions by the store manager of store #245466 in Kotzebue, Alaska, but it does not mean that this is representative of the situation in the other thousand or so locations. Under a class action proceeding, there is no opportunity for the company to defend against each claim on the individual merits.
