tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-352002642024-02-20T07:26:36.319-08:00GreedWatch--stopcorporategreed.orgNews on the Wealthiest 2% of Americans who Own almost Everything and Run almost Everything, and what we can do about it. Do you feel powerless as the super-rich buy up America's key industries and cherry-pick the best parts and dump the rest, forming ever-bigger monopolies? THE SOLUTION? BUY NOTHING YOU DON'T REALLY NEED. BUY USED, TRADE WITH YOUR FRIENDS...Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-89648217044562822702016-09-27T15:15:00.001-07:002016-09-27T15:17:05.940-07:00THE TEN BIGGEST FOOD PROCESSORS ON YOUR SUPERMARKET SHELVES<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-28E782gg5KY/V-ru7RxS7yI/AAAAAAAAF64/OFZZbDucDwodhEvszhA5Hu34kEA1PYKggCLcB/s1600/screen_shot_2014-07-07_at_10.58.44_am.jpg%253Ds1600x1900.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-28E782gg5KY/V-ru7RxS7yI/AAAAAAAAF64/OFZZbDucDwodhEvszhA5Hu34kEA1PYKggCLcB/s1600/screen_shot_2014-07-07_at_10.58.44_am.jpg%253Ds1600x1900.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="color: red;">CLICK ON THE GRAPHIC TO SEE THE FULL IMAGE </span><br />
<br />
FOR FULL STORY:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://food.good.is/articles/food-brands-owners">https://food.good.is/articles/food-brands-owners</a>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-74522912315722310702014-09-08T10:30:00.001-07:002014-09-08T10:30:11.393-07:00Media Monopolists Want to Tighten their Grip<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Send emails in opposition to internet fast lane for the rich (and a slowdown for the rest of us) by Wednesday September 10th </b></span></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">To Comment on the
proposed changes to the Internet rules: GO TO
<a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=428s7">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=428s7</a> TO SEND THEM A COMMENT</span><br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: yellow;">INSIST THAT THE INTERNET BE TREATED LIKE A PUBLIC UTILITY, WITH THE SAME PRICES AND ACCESS RIGHTS FOR ALL OF US</span><br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: yellow;">Editors note: great information
in this story, but the newspaper editor's have added in some language to
give the impression that it's all a "done deal" and that no one cares.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: yellow;">--------------------------------</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: yellow;"><br /></span></div>
<a href="http://www.dailybreeze.com/technology/20140907/net-neutrality-rules-could-cost-more-for-speedy-internet-service">http://www.dailybreeze.com/technology/20140907/net-neutrality-rules-could-cost-more-for-speedy-internet-service</a><br />
<br />
By Rob Lowman, Los Angeles Daily News <br />
<br />
<br />
9/8/2014--A
major rule change in how companies provide Internet service to the
public could fundamentally disrupt online life as we know it, impacting
the flow of information, business competition, freedom of speech and
everyone’s pocketbook for years to come — but <span style="background-color: yellow;">no one seems all that concerned. (OH REALLY?)</span><br />
<br />
Under
the concept of net neutrality, now under review by the FCC, broadband
Internet service providers would have to provide service without
discrimination based on content. They also couldn’t impose elaborate
tiered pricing systems under which companies like Google or Netflix, for
example — and therefore their customers — would have to pay higher
prices to get their content delivered at the fastest speeds. Others who
don’t pay more would see delivery of their content deliberately slowed
down. <br />
<br />
<br />
If left alone, ISPs like Comcast or
Verizon would be able to control speed on the Internet in the future,
creating fast lanes for those willing to pay for it.<br />
<br />
In the Federal Communication Commission’s first 60-day commentary period, barely <span style="background-color: yellow;">1 million people had registered their thoughts about it</span>. In 2004, Janet Jackson’s less than a half-second nipple slip at the Super Bowl received some 1.4 million unsolicited comments.<br />
<br />
The next commentary period runs through Wednesday. <br />
<br />
Earlier
this summer, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a speech that the
commission is planning to promote more high-speed Internet service
choices and protect competition for consumers. <br />
<br />
<br />
“There
is an inverse relationship between competition and the kind of
broadband performance that consumers are increasingly demanding,”
Wheeler said. “This is not tolerable.”<br />
<br />
<br />
He
cited Commerce Department statistics that an overwhelming majority of
homes have no choice among providers. Wheeler also pointed to the
long-distance market of the 1990s when users could switch from one
carrier to another as an example of “a truly competitive
telecommunications marketplace.”<br />
<br />
Wheeler did not reveal
what steps the FCC might take or what this might mean for the pending
Comcast takeover of Time Warner Cable. <br />
<br />
<br />
Earlier
this year, a district court struck down the FCC’s 2010 order intending
to prevent broadband ISPs from blocking or interfering with traffic on
the Web. In May, the FCC voted 3-2 to open public debate on new rules
meant to guarantee an open Internet but with some additional caveats.
The new provisions are similar to the old in that they are meant to
prevent cable companies from knowingly slowing down anyone’s data.<br />
<br />
That should ensure all content running on the Internet is treated equally, <span style="background-color: yellow;">except
the new rules also allow for giant cable and Internet companies like
Comcast, Time-Warner, AT&T and Verizon to create fast lanes for
those who can pay. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
Some companies are already doing so.<br />
<br />
At
the end of last year, Netflix subscribers complained of sluggish
downloads as they waited for movies and shows like “House of Cards.” The
streaming giant claimed Comcast, the country’s largest cable and
broadband provider, was slowing download times.<br />
<br />
Comcast
denied the claims, and said a second party Netflix was using was
slowing the downloads. It wanted the streaming company to go through
them directly.<br />
<br />
Though they complained publicly about
having to do it, Netflix quickly signed a deal in February with Comcast
to ensure faster speeds for its customers. It then went on to sign
similar ones with Verizon and AT&T. <br />
<br />
<br />
Ten
days before the Netflix deal, Comcast made a $45 billion bid to buy
Time Warner Cable. In an April letter to stockholders, Reed Hastings,
the chief executive of Netflix, was still angry about the Comcast deal
and came out in opposition to the merger, saying that the new company
would “possess even more anti-competitive leverage to charge arbitrary
interconnection tolls for access to their customers.”<br />
<br />
Comcast
countered with the statement: “There has been no company that has had a
stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast.” <br />
<br />
<br />
If
Internet superhighways are created for a fee, it won’t be just Netflix,
which recently hit 50 million subscribers, joining the fast lane. Other
companies able to pay — Amazon, Google and Facebook — aren’t going to
be left behind.<br />
<br />
At risk are small or new businesses who
won’t be able to pay superhighway speeds and consumers who will face a
choice of how much they are willing to pay for speedy Internet access.
At the time of the Netflix-Comcast deal, Tim Wu, the Columbia University
professor who first coined the phrase net neutrality, likened it to
water in the basement for the Internet industry. He told the New York
Times, “I think it is going to be bad for consumers,” believing costs
will likely be passed onto them. In Netflix’s case, the firm announced
price hikes. <br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">If
the merger between Comcast and Time Warner occurs, the new company
would have 19 of the country’s top 20 cable markets. Estimates say the
mega-company would then control around 40 percent of the high-speed
Internet market.</span><br />
<br />
Some believe that ISPs —like
Comcast — should be reclassified as a utility, and regulated like
electricity. Comcast spent nearly a quarter of the 74-page document it
submitted as comment to the FCC arguing against that.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">The
commission had once deemed ISPs as “information services,” like
websites. But in the decision earlier this year the court said the FCC
lacked authority to enforce its existing net neutrality rules because it
hadn’t classified broadband providers as “telecommunications services.”
That would make them more like telephone companies, who own their lines
like ISPs but are required to lease them to other companies if a
customer opts for another firm’s service. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
The
FCC still has the power under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to
reclassify them, and that worries ISPs. AT&T and Verizon have also
weighed in against the possibility in their comments to the FCC.<br />
<br />
While
everyone seems to argue for some form of net neutrality, the Internet
Association, which represents about three dozen Web companies such as
Google, Netflix and Amazon, opposes the idea of fast lanes. Such rules
would undoubtedly cement charging more for higher speeds as a business
practice.<br />
<br />
“We are dedicated to protecting and preserving an open Internet,” the FCC’s Wheeler said before the vote in May. <span style="background-color: yellow;">A former chief lobbyist for the cable industry who was appointed by President Obama,</span> Wheeler cast the swing vote, joining the two Democratic commissioners in opening the rules to debate. <br />
<br />
<br />
With
so much of commerce dependent on the Internet, should we leave the
pipes unregulated or in the hands of profit-motivated companies? Or does
the solution lie somewhere in between?<br />
<br />
Some argue that
dividing content into those who can afford fast lanes — whether
businesses or political PACs — is a threat to freedom. On the Internet,
milliseconds are important. Most people usually don’t go deep into
searches on the Web. If users are subtlety directed toward certain
sites, eventually that could have an impact not only on what we buy but
what we think. Without rules, ISPs can become gatekeepers. Comcast,
which wants little regulation, argues in its comments to the FCC that it
wouldn’t restrict access because it “would incur substantial subscriber
losses and reputational harm.” Essentially, they say they won’t do it
because it would cost them money. <br />
<br />
<br />
Anyone
following the news already knows there are privacy concerns to be
addressed. There are also concerns about “search neutrality,” which is
the idea that search results should be free of social, political, or
financial agendas. Right now there is nothing in place to maintain
“search neutrality.” If companies like Amazon and Google — who determine
relevance in search results — join the fast lane, it’s likely to
increase their influence.<br />
<br />
Wu is so worried about it
that he is running for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor
of New York, hoping to help create legislation to keep such companies
in check. <br />
<br />
<br />
You can still weigh in on the
“net neutrality” rules. The giant cable and Internet companies have
already, plus they have Capitol Hill lobbyists. Comcast ranked fifth
among all organizations in U.S. government lobbying spending last year,
according to the Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project. Google, AT&T
and Verizon are also among the top spenders.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">To make a comment on any current matter before the FCC, go to www.fcc.gov/comments. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;"><br /></span>
Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-90261966448011752212014-09-01T14:11:00.001-07:002014-09-08T10:32:11.205-07:00You Can't Beat 'em If You Can't Join 'em<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Cable Giants Try to Limit Cities' Internet Service</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.newser.com/story/193221/cable-giants-try-to-block-cities-internet-service.html">http://www.newser.com/story/193221/cable-giants-try-to-block-cities-internet-service.html</a></div>
<br />
By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Posted Aug 30, 2014
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(Newser) – Municipalities, take note: US Telecom, a group
representing cable giants like Time Warner and Comcast is pressing US officials
to stop two cities from expanding high-speed Internet services, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/29/us-telecoms-fcc-block-high-speed-internet-chattanooga" target="_blank">Guardian</a> reports.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/29/us-telecoms-fcc-block-high-speed-internet-chattanooga">http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/29/us-telecoms-fcc-block-high-speed-internet-chattanooga</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Those cities—Chattanooga, TN,
and Wilson, NC—are
already providing unusually fast 1GB-per-second service to residents. Chattanooga's
broadband helped trigger a tech boom, and Wilson's
reached people who were complaining about the quality and cost of Time Warner
service. Now each city wants to expand service into a wider area, the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/telecom-industry-asks-fcc-not-to-push-municipal-broadband-1409358425" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a> reports. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/telecom-industry-asks-fcc-not-to-push-municipal-broadband-1409358425">http://online.wsj.com/articles/telecom-industry-asks-fcc-not-to-push-municipal-broadband-1409358425</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
US Telecom's lobbyists are urging the FCC not to let cities
work around laws designed to protect private broadband companies (20 states
have such laws, <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/29/6084171/cable-companies-file-to-stop-municipal-broadband-expansion" target="_blank">the Verge</a> notes). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/29/6084171/cable-companies-file-to-stop-municipal-broadband-expansion">http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/29/6084171/cable-companies-file-to-stop-municipal-broadband-expansion</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
US Telecom is also arguing <a href="http://www.ustelecom.org/blog/fcc-has-no-standing-state-broadband-laws" target="_blank">in a blog</a> (<a href="http://www.ustelecom.org/blog/fcc-has-no-standing-state-broadband-laws">http://www.ustelecom.org/blog/fcc-has-no-standing-state-broadband-laws</a>)
that public broadband has "a mixed record, with numerous examples of
failures"—and it's true that a group of Utah towns had to sell its service
to Google for $1 after failing to make enough money. So, is municipal broadband
anti-competitive? Cable companies say subsidies give cities an unfair leg up,
while cities argue that they are improving competition in their areas. (On the
lighter side, read about the Comcast <a href="http://www.newser.com/story/190994/comcast-call-from-hell-makes-waves.html">"call
from hell."</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-52315674064822717722013-06-22T12:14:00.003-07:002013-06-22T12:14:54.109-07:00Mitt Who?<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Mitt Romney's favorite Radio Station Owner is in Trouble</b></span><br />
<br />
This is probably beating a dead horse, (as who remembers Mitt Romney now?), but I just learned that Romney's corporate buyout firm Bain Capital owns the US's largest radio station chain, Clear Channel, which has been the subject of my ire for years.<br />
<br />
Clear Channel owns and distributes on its stations shows by right-wing hotheads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and distributes Fox News in radio form. They're by far the largest of owner of radio stations in the USA and also are tops in Billboards. I've written a lot about their past antics here:<br />
<a href="http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Clear%20Channel">http://greedwatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Clear%20Channel</a><br />
They have in recent years added liberal talk radio shows on some of their lower-rated outlets, so their reputation for being all right wingers has changed in recent years as they've realized that liberal talk sells ads, too.<br />
<br />
As this column from my local paper says: "Bain Capitol, the majority
owner following a 2008 buyout, must be mighty nervous right now.
According to industry estimates and filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Clear Channel has more than $16 billion of debt,
declining revenues, declining cash flow, and a huge debt payment due
relatively soon - with virtually no way to pay it.
<span id="RDS_Site"><span id="RDS_Site"></span></span><br />
This could be the beginning of the end for a company that, in my opinion, never deserved to exist."<br />
from: <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/entertainment/ci_22187319/radio-clear-channel-layoffs-hit-kost-kbig-kysr">http://www.dailynews.com/entertainment/ci_22187319/radio-clear-channel-layoffs-hit-kost-kbig-kysr</a><br />
<br />
Clear Channel is a prime beneficiary (and now a victim) of the US Congress's 1996 Telecommunications deregulation act, which allowed corporate monopolies to gobble up 8 or more radio stations in a market area, instead of the previous limit of 2. The law similarly allows ownership of 2 or more TV stations in a market when the previous limit was 1.<br />
<br />
The problem for Clear Channel is they over-borrowed to bulk up on stations, computerized the formats and fired DJs and then faced the wrath of consumers who switched to ad-free ipods and other portable music players. That's when Romney's Bain Capital firm swooped in and bought the place at likely a bargain price. The firm has not recovered, though, and it lost over $400 million in 2012.<br />
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/20/1188686/-Clear-Channel-Loses-424-Million-in-2012-StopRush-Rolls-On#">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/20/1188686/-Clear-Channel-Loses-424-Million-in-2012-StopRush-Rolls-On#</a><br />
<br />
Not that Mitt is hurting due to this.<br />
Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-56764389530375793362013-06-21T10:45:00.004-07:002013-06-21T10:45:59.338-07:00Cable Customers Sue over Mandatory Sports Channel fees<span id="Global"><span id="Article"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Cable Competitors No Help in Avoiding Mega Sports Channel Fees </b></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span id="Global"><span id="Article">for full story: </span></span><br />
<a href="http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_23508568/tom-hoffarth-courting-change-cable?"><span id="Global"><span id="Article">http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_23508568/tom-hoffarth-courting-change-cable?</span></span></a><br />
<br />
<span id="Global"><span id="Article">6/21/2013--It's become the $11 billion question
is: How can Time Warner Cable get away with starting up its own
Lakers-centric channel, then help fund the Dodgers with the launch of
their own channel, with the end game eventually force Southern
California TV viewers to foot the bill for the bulk of it without the
option of opting out?</span></span><br />
<span id="Global"><span id="Article">...</span></span><span id="Global"><span id="Article"><span id="Global"><span id="Article">The four plaintiffs -- from L.A.,
Long Beach, Orange County and Pasadena -- are all considered "non-sport
fans" tired of footing the extra payments in their monthly bills for
sports-centric channels, (their lawyer) Blecher insisted. They can't simply drop TWC
and take a different option like DirecTV, Verizon Fios or AT&T
U-verse because they also have hiked fees in response to agreeing to
carry the TWC sports channels...</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span id="Global"><span id="Article"><span id="Global"><span id="Article">(Editor's note: No question, cable tv is a racket. This lawsuit is a great first step, and we need our government to force the TV delivery monopolies to offer "a la carte" cable. But in the meantime, there is an alternative: get internet-only, and pay for Netflix ($8 a month to get movies), watch TV with an antenna, go to comedycentral.com to watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report for free, etc. Or do without a tv totally--you'll live......Rex</span></span> </span></span>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-69709406303329867712013-06-01T15:26:00.002-07:002013-06-01T15:26:52.028-07:00Hi, friends,<br />
<br />
For those that wonder why no posts lately....I enrolled in law school in 2009 and will be finished at the end of 2013. I am studying corporate monopoly law right now and hope to post some good stuff soon.<br />
<br />
Anyway, here's a website I stumbled across that has a lot to combat corporate propaganda:<br />
<a href="http://crywolfproject.org/">http://crywolfproject.org/</a><br />
<br />
...Rex, the editor <br />
<br />Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-20199532158446627012012-07-14T09:45:00.000-07:002012-07-14T09:45:22.749-07:00!!!!!!!!!!!!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UOxHWN2z00U/UAGh3P4O_kI/AAAAAAAAEDA/hl0SXyTuLIY/s1600/jailed+bankers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UOxHWN2z00U/UAGh3P4O_kI/AAAAAAAAEDA/hl0SXyTuLIY/s400/jailed+bankers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxtRVatyrasjWSAM_AZHP1bKRimoT1Ci54k2QZI7awrORxSd9y2xmbS41CAxn17XVkZkQ3mBnmopJxzFE_TjF-uwmiSbMfCT5CA7Pzpfd4bngcC6ULVetf80oRJBIgaxrugzk/s1600/non+sequitur.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxtRVatyrasjWSAM_AZHP1bKRimoT1Ci54k2QZI7awrORxSd9y2xmbS41CAxn17XVkZkQ3mBnmopJxzFE_TjF-uwmiSbMfCT5CA7Pzpfd4bngcC6ULVetf80oRJBIgaxrugzk/s640/non+sequitur.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-7305026630329153862012-01-24T11:07:00.000-08:002012-01-24T11:07:59.785-08:00And this is why the rich shouldn't pay 3% more in taxes?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yFsBDbSeFto/Tx8A2vU8giI/AAAAAAAAD6c/_Wt9SDQH0sI/s1600/romney+makes+a+bet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yFsBDbSeFto/Tx8A2vU8giI/AAAAAAAAD6c/_Wt9SDQH0sI/s1600/romney+makes+a+bet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yFsBDbSeFto/Tx8A2vU8giI/AAAAAAAAD6c/_Wt9SDQH0sI/s320/romney+makes+a+bet.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
1/24/2012--L.A. Times...<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-releases-tax-returns-20120124,0,4945167.story">http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-releases-tax-returns-20120124,0,4945167.story</a><br />
<br />
Republican presidential candidate <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-releases-tax-returns-20120124,0,4945167.story#">Mitt Romney</a> and his wife Ann paid $3 million in federal taxes in 2010 on nearly $21.7 million of income derived from a vast array of investments, amounting to an effective tax rate of 13.9%, according returns released by his campaign Tuesday.<br />
<br />
In addition, the Romneys expect to pay $3.2 million on $20.9 million of income for the 2011 tax year, for an effective rate of 15.4%. <br />
<br />
That’s substantially lower than the top 35% marginal tax rate on wages and salaries -- and much lower than the rate paid by his political rivals. President Obama paid an effective tax rate of 26% in 2010, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich paid a rate of 31.6%. Experts say Romney benefits from a tax code that allows investors to keep more of their income than wage earners, particularly investors in the rarefied world of private equity.<br />
<br />
Even among his wealthy peers -- a cohort that particularly benefits from the lower capital gains rate -- Romney’s rate is below the average 18.5% effective tax rate paid by the richest 1%, according to the Tax Policy Center...Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-55306216646970157302012-01-11T10:02:00.000-08:002012-01-11T10:04:43.718-08:00Republicans start sounding like "socialists"?<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3><div class="post-header"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Romney "like(s) being able to fire people."</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b> <span style="font-size: medium;">Other GOP contenders have a problem with that (not firing people, just telling the public that's what they want to do)</span></b></span></div><br />
"Can't we get back to bashing Obama's pro-middle class policies?"<br />
<br />
Full story: <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/littwin/ci_19707306">http://www.denverpost.com/littwin/ci_19707306</a><br />
<br />
By Mike Littwin<br />
The last thing anyone could have expected from the Republican presidential field here was a late-breaking shift to the left...<br />
<br />
...Here's Gingrich, who has called Romney a looter, explaining to the press how a historian/not lobbyist sees the issue: <br />
"Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money? Or is that, in fact ... a flawed system? So I do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods and leaving behind a factory that should be there." <br />
<br />
Rick Perry — who is polling at 1 percent in New Hampshire — is in South Carolina, where he's focusing on a company that he says was "looted" by Bain and adds that "getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is ... indefensible."<br />
<br />
"If you're a victim of Bain Capital's downsizing," said Perry, who routinely calls Barack Obama a socialist, "it's the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain, because he caused it."<br />
<br />
I know. You think the outrage may be forced — and a little late in the game. Everyone figured Romney's problem in the primaries would be Romneycare. But it turns out to be Bain Scare...Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-15625562485236834282011-04-22T09:28:00.000-07:002011-04-22T09:28:13.658-07:00"What it comes down to is that two companies own nine of the top 11 stations in town..."<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Clear Channel, CBS stations are dominant in the ratings in L.A</b></span>.</div><br />
By Richard Wagoner, Posted: 04/21/2011, <a href="http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_17902877">http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_17902877</a><br />
<br />
KIIS-FM (102.7) was Los Angeles radio's dominant force once again, based on the monthly Arbitron ratings released this week. While down a half point to 5.1, the station was still a half point better than KOST (103.5 FM) at 4.6. With KFI's (640 AM) third-place 4.3 - its highest rating since at least November 2010 - owner Clear Channel had a 1-2-3 sweep. Add in 10th place KBIG (flat at 3.3), and the company had four of the top 10 stations in town - an amazing feat. <br />
<br />
But wait: Though CBS didn't have quite the dominance as Clear Channel, it also controlled much of the top 10, with fourth-place KRTH's (101.1 FM) 4.2, a sixth-place tie between KNX (1070 AM) and KROQ (106.7 FM) at 3.5, and a 10th-place tie between Amp Radio (97.1 FM) and sister The Wave (94.7 FM) - matching Clear Channel's KBIG at 3.3. <br />
<br />
What it comes down to is that two companies own nine of the top 11 stations in town. <br />
<br />
In my opinion, that is market dominance that needs to be broken up. Last time something like that happened, the Federal Communications Commission broke up NBC and forced the launch of ABC, which later became one of America's premier networks...Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-24147993583958386832010-11-11T13:28:00.000-08:002010-11-11T13:28:18.627-08:00What really happened in last week's election:<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Democrats in name only (DINO's) Lost Out Big Last Week</b></span></div><br />
excerpted from:<br />
<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131093849&sc=17&f=1001">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131093849&sc=17&f=1001</a><br />
<br />
11/6/2010--The defeat of many Blue Dogs leaves white Southern Democrats without much of a voice — but the Progressive Caucus, which retained nearly all its members, will likely gain clout.<br />
<br />
Congress shifted to the right with the elections of several Tea Party Republicans this week — but the rightward trend wasn't enough to save a number of conservative and centrist Democrats, who were defeated in the House in large numbers.<br />
<br />
Especially hard-hit was the Blue Dog Coalition — only 23 of its 54 members were re-elected...Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-25304437202946343112010-11-10T09:09:00.000-08:002010-11-10T09:10:30.924-08:00A message to the Tea Party:<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Dear Tea Party: You will now get yours</b></span></div><br />
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist<br />
SFGate November 10, 2010 <br />
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/11/10/notes111010.DTL&ao=2#ixzz14tqkzPds">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/11/10/notes111010.DTL&ao=2#ixzz14tqkzPds</a><br />
<br />
<br />
And now, hot on the heels of our recent letter to whiny young Democrats, a loving shout-out to all those moderates and independents, confused conservatives and hard-line Repubs who went just a little more than slightly insane this past election.<br />
<br />
To all of you who either flip-flopped your wishy-washy ideals and switched your vote from bluish to reddish this past election because Obama and the lukewarm Dems failed to solve all world problems in 700 days, or because you got yourself so emotionally riled up/mentally watered down by the sexy caveman grunts of the Tea Party that you actually bought the BS line about being "mad as hell" about nothing even remotely coherent.<br />
<br />
Here is your grand message: You are hereby wonderfully, thoroughly screwed.<br />
<br />
FOR FULL STORY: <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Oh darling, it's so very true. The fun-filled news is, despite all the bluster and rhetoric, thinly veiled racism and rampant Islamophobia on display, the new army of jittery, anti-everything GOP bobbleheads that you just voted into office doesn't care a single iota about you, or your haphazard values, or what you sometimes occasionally stand for. And what's more, deep down, you secretly know it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Are you slightly offended? Are you scowling and mistrustful of the notion? I'm delighted to hear it. Also: It doesn't really matter.<br />
<br />
You don't have to believe me. Just wait until nothing at all is done to service the Tea Party non-agenda, because it's ridiculous and impossible to service. Just wait until you note how there is no actual shrinking of government, no restoring some bogus sepia-toned idealism that never existed, no saving of your job. There is, of course, but one GOP agenda: furthering their personal stranglehold on all things powermad and avaricious.<br />
<br />
That's not to say they won't try to tackle some issues. Boehner & Co care very much about nailing down enormous tax cuts for wealthy people, preventing education reform, gridlocking Congress at every turn, denying the fact that seven billion rapacious humans have an effect on climate change, and blocking as much newly available health care for 30 million Americans as possible. And so on.<br />
<br />
<br />
But truly, the issues themselves don't matter. For what Boehner & Co value most is not so much making any sort of significant change in American culture, but rather, in keeping the anger, the dread, the paranoia alive.<br />
<br />
In other words, they care most about keeping you in the lower, plebian castes all riled and blind as long as possible. This way, power lies. This way we find war and military expenditure and all manner of misprision, torture, environmental rape, WMD and homophobia, you name it. Just ask Karl Rove. Hey, it's a platform. It worked for Dubya. Well, sort of.<br />
<br />
<br />
Perhaps you secretly agree with this assessment, understanding that the Repubs are indeed mostly shmucks, but at least they're shmucks fighting in your corner. Maybe you think the Dems are no better, and it's all a matter of lesser-of-two-evils, a needful balancing of power, that the nation's new rightward tilt serves Obama right for -- what was it again? "Overreaching"? For daring to accomplish in two short years more than any president in six decades? Right.<br />
<br />
One thing's certain: the populace remains angry and scared about, well, what we've always been angry and scared about: jobs, a massive deficit, war and terrorism, taxes and drugs, gangs and goons, evil bumps in the night.<br />
<br />
But these days, one source of anger trumps all others. We are perhaps most furious about our dysfunctional political system, one that cherishes acrimony over cohesion, backstabbing over unity, bickering over a calm and respectful, unified vision. (Which is a little strange, considering how much Pelosi and the Dems accomplished in two years. It might have been acerbic, but the output was actually sort of stunning. But never mind that now).<br />
<br />
Are both parties to blame for this hateful, acerbic tone? Are they equally responsible for the ongoing divisiveness? Sure. To some degree. Then again, no. Not really. Not by a long shot.<br />
<br />
<br />
Let's be perfectly clear: The modern Republican party has one masterful, godlike skill unmatched by any other org in this century: Its leaders are geniuses at deceit, at leading throngs of blind believers into rabbit holes of war and fear and factual inaccuracy, often using an aggressively dumbed-down form of Christianity as a trump card. Sexual dread, mistrust of youth, of women, of gays, foreigners, of the ever-changing cultural landscape? It's in the DNA. And the Tea Party chugged it like Coors-flavored heroin.<br />
<br />
<br />
And the Dems? The Dems wish they could be that masterful. Progressives are just terribly weak in fearmongering. There is something about the liberal spirit that values independent thought and self-determination, that defies screaming eye-glazed megachurch groupthink dread. This makes it tough to hold power for very long. It's so much easier to rally around sameness, conformity, institution, fear of the Other. Right, Karl?<br />
<br />
Proof? Look no further than the GOP's leaders and mouthpieces: Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, O'Reilly and Fox News and even newly minted Senate demigod Mitch McConnell, et al. There are almost no liberal equivalents to these professional liars, warmongers, kingmakers and overlords. In the category of media and message manipulation, the libs have proven disastrous.<br />
<br />
<br />
I take it back. Not all red-leaning voters this election are hereby screwed. If you're tremendously wealthy and/or run a very large corporation, you're feeling damn good right about now. Wall Street is giddy like Charlie Sheen in a Bangkok brothel, eager for more deregulation, bigger bonuses, less oversight. The CEOs of every oil company in the world are positively orgasmic knowing that their GOP breathren will now asphyxiate all attempts at new environmental legislation and regulation. And so on.<br />
<br />
<br />
But if you are a lower to middle-class Republican, Tea Partier or flip-flopping indie voter, you are now in the most delightfully ironic position of all -- you think you just voted yourself more voice, when in fact you voted for far less. You think yourself a lion; you're actually the meat. You actually just voted yourself an even lower position on the food chain. Congratulations.<br />
<br />
But don't worry. There is a bright spot ahead. 2012 is nigh, and a dramatic new vote simmers and looms, as it always does. Soon enough, it will shift and mutate all over again, and we can kickstart the eternal debate once more. Something to look forward to, no?Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-58525616212365151842010-04-14T10:46:00.000-07:002010-04-27T11:49:44.031-07:00Crybaby Bullies Need your help! or at least your cash....donate now.....<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b> A Wealthy Whiner says: As you know, the Left is responsible for all the lack of joy in America today... </b></span></div><br />
<a href="http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=803f0131-dff4-4ea1-8062-d54e41037811&url=the_left_squashes_lifes_little_pleasures">http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=803f0131-dff4-4ea1-8062-d54e41037811&url=the_left_squashes_lifes_little_pleasures </a><br />
<br />
----------------------------------------------------- <br />
This was in the April 14 issue of the Daily Breeze. I just had to respond:<br />
<br />
Dear editor,<br />
<br />
Really--the wealthy, influential and sadly, victimized radio host and newspaper columnist <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1271266602_0" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer;">Dennis Praeger</span> thinks "the Left has squashed life's little pleasures" by banning smoking, fireplaces and incandescent lightbulbs. (Of course, when reasonable restrictions were placed on these, it was with bi-partisan support, but Prager leaves this fact out) When you're living in a right-wing fear-based fantasy world, facts don't matter. You know, I don't recall the Left wrecking our economy and putting millions of Americans out of work. I don't recall the Left turning a federal treasury with a massive surplus into a massive tax-sucking hole while cutting taxes for the rich. I don't recall the Left refusing to enforce our laws for 8 years while <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1271266602_1">Wall Street</span> crooks paid themselves billions in bonuses for selling fraudulent "securities" and I don't recall the Left handing hundreds of billions to these same crooks when they wrecked their own companies. No. It was the poor victimized right wing billionaires who made this mess. They are the real enemy of<br />
life's most important little pleasures--like a job with a living wage.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, right wing TV and radio blowhards boast about how influential they are, how a majority of Americans agree with them, but at the same time, they complain about being victimized. When you're the rich influential majority, it is impossible to be victimized. The right wing are crybaby bullies, beating and cheating on the rest of us, then crying foul when we stand up to them. Boo hoo!Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-10033601473165847452010-03-25T11:06:00.000-07:002010-03-25T11:06:38.984-07:00ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , it's about freaking time!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/S6ul4B5aKeI/AAAAAAAABvM/f1tyaiDARFU/s1600/luckovich--health+insurer+excuses+denied.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="504" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/S6ul4B5aKeI/AAAAAAAABvM/f1tyaiDARFU/s640/luckovich--health+insurer+excuses+denied.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-16574071929486146132010-03-24T10:10:00.000-07:002010-03-24T10:14:44.147-07:00Mass Firings Lead to Economic Boom--for big corporations...<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>The Solution for the recession: full un-employment! </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>- </b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;">excepted from<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rich-companies24-2010mar24,0,395617.story">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rich-companies24-2010mar24,0,395617.story</a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Big companies are awash in cash as economy picks up</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Some experts say the strength of the largest firms will be key as the recovery strengthens. Others worry that the giants' clout has grown at workers' expense.<br />
<br />
3-24-2010<br />
By Tom Petruno<br />
<br />
The brutal recession has left many American families, small businesses and state and local governments in financial ruin or teetering on the brink.<br />
<br />
But it's a much different story for the nation's biggest companies. Many have emerged from the economy's harrowing downturn loaded with cash, <b><span style="color: red;">thanks to deep cost-cutting that helped drive unemployment into double digits.</span></b><br />
<br />
And although the banking crisis starved countless entrepreneurs for money last year, credit was never scarce for business titans.<br />
<br />
Corporate America's robust finances have been a boon for the companies' stocks: On Tuesday, the blue-chip Dow Jones industrial average hit its highest level in nearly 18 months, surging 102.94 points, or 1%, to 10,888.83...Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-21696557291872465752010-02-27T12:59:00.000-08:002010-02-27T13:03:40.965-08:00Good News, and More Good News<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Apparently, a box the size of a refrigerator can generate all the electricity needs of 100 homes... <span style="font-size: large;">A Hummer is about the size of 4 refrigerators...I see an opportunity here!!</span></b></span></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0kxHGzqYHWL0KIZ9jp0SKCCSt23JWnEX45ZGM7sElQ5m4Pi1JVSTWIQBS_dyTEYYRu3t_JEaBPR0oBvrRjiy9-_dZT5WCdwnVOWy8Xb0x_1ZIoJmLiYXlG42hgZ7xnakc2j0/s1600-h/bloom+box+v+hummer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0kxHGzqYHWL0KIZ9jp0SKCCSt23JWnEX45ZGM7sElQ5m4Pi1JVSTWIQBS_dyTEYYRu3t_JEaBPR0oBvrRjiy9-_dZT5WCdwnVOWy8Xb0x_1ZIoJmLiYXlG42hgZ7xnakc2j0/s640/bloom+box+v+hummer.jpg" width="472" /></a></div>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-87532251476812611442010-02-14T14:42:00.000-08:002010-02-14T14:42:39.051-08:00The "heavy hand of government" is often that of the public interest, yelling "Stop Thief!""A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation"--Howard Scott<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAcsvW8VgnehEZZsMpIVzd0YWSrsThb1T93pugS2cWbn-z9NsTxnintMWtHBXOHNLDtWqvSeERb3JhMZIuueMKsCrtkNCoiTgMrte3uTNwuerI1rDMlL4VmEsK5pq9G5ZO9As/s1600-h/oh+hell...government+interference.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ct="true" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAcsvW8VgnehEZZsMpIVzd0YWSrsThb1T93pugS2cWbn-z9NsTxnintMWtHBXOHNLDtWqvSeERb3JhMZIuueMKsCrtkNCoiTgMrte3uTNwuerI1rDMlL4VmEsK5pq9G5ZO9As/s640/oh+hell...government+interference.jpg" width="470" /></a></div>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-83147168621526828092010-02-04T10:47:00.000-08:002010-02-04T11:22:42.343-08:00The USA is already the biggest health insurance company--and the private insurance companies still thrive!<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">To all those friends of the Health insurance industry in the U.S. Senate: government competition is no obstacle to massive insurance company profits.</span></span><br /></div><br />One half of the US's health care industry is funded by a non-profit health insurance system: it's called the US government. We already have a massive "public" option and we still have a massively profitable private health insurance industry.<br /><br />All the Democrats are seeking is a public "option" to insure the remaining 10% of Americans who don't have health insurance. This would mean the now-uninsured would have "preventive" care, and preventing illness is a lot less costly than the taxpayers having to pay to treat a full-blown illness. Either way, the uninsured are going to a government/taxpayer funded clinic or hospital once they get sick. Our tax dollars will pay for treatment no matter what. The public option is the only way that the total cost for care will be brought down. The private health insurers have never reduced their rates and have no incentive. Republicans always talk about saving the taxpayer's money. Whether the tax is paid to the government or to a private health insurance corporation, we all pay the cost of the massive profiteering by the health industry. Based on the way the Republican's bankrupted both our government and banks and Wall Street over the last 8 years, why does anyone see them as protectors of our money? I trust my government, which I can vote for or against, a lot more than unelected corporate monopolies.<br /><br />---Rex Frankel<br />--------------------<br /><br />2/4/2010--WASHINGTON (AP) -- Government is poised to become king of the hill in America's vast health care system, with or without President Barack Obama's planned redo, according to an economic report released Thursday. Federal and state programs will pay slightly more than half the tab for health care purchased in the United States by 2012, says the analysis by Medicare number crunchers published in the journal Health Affairs. That's even if Obama's health care overhaul wastes away in congressional limbo...<br /><br />...The report estimated that in 2009, the United States spent $2.5 trillion for health care, with government programs - mainly Medicare and Medicaid - paying $1.2 trillion. Employer health insurance and various private sources covered the other $1.3 trillion. Even as the economy shrank because of the downturn, health care spending grew by 5.7 percent from 2008. Spending by government grew nearly three times faster than private spending, closing in to overtake it...<br /><br /><a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_GOVERNMENT_ROLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-02-04-00-49-37">http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_GOVERNMENT_ROLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-02-04-00-49-37</a>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-62905934538704682592009-11-02T10:50:00.001-08:002009-11-02T10:56:58.236-08:00English as a second language for the looney-right<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJZPbA9NSj6Y4RqNGNRo7XKs6mkKdMhDX6SegmDTGjZep9DGFIq2kOH3loJhvH1ECyqS3rYpAN2XaFmCodOpu67YQJQyiSe77P8H9c_J7iVmnA09q-UstbCCkNaqv3_S-Ian0/s1600-h/pc-candorville.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 132px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJZPbA9NSj6Y4RqNGNRo7XKs6mkKdMhDX6SegmDTGjZep9DGFIq2kOH3loJhvH1ECyqS3rYpAN2XaFmCodOpu67YQJQyiSe77P8H9c_J7iVmnA09q-UstbCCkNaqv3_S-Ian0/s400/pc-candorville.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5399582215629426802" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/Su8qDJOjE7I/AAAAAAAABlo/RV49nuKSiJo/s1600-h/yeahh--another+obama+failure.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 314px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/Su8qDJOjE7I/AAAAAAAABlo/RV49nuKSiJo/s400/yeahh--another+obama+failure.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5399580711745426354" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlKDt6IW2q-XzWUcKJ5MBU017NEnbvyBXUZd4Dutr8Ugt6qpob3IzF6Naoxpf6NsS_wkmu7dQqTx0PQIcowvqXbFWHyD4F9SBqZ_LjDm4h_iBCkEF5OiMOm74H1PhBe5hmqHo/s1600-h/pc-candorville.jpg"><br /></a>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-9739310235916451912009-10-23T10:42:00.000-07:002009-11-06T08:14:32.518-08:00Fox News--the choice of 1% of America...<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fox stands alone against the massive liberal establishment...bla bla blaDuhhhh...Fox News MUST Represent the majority of Americans...Right? Cause they get the highest ratings</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">(the fine print: among people who watch the 24 hour cable news channels only. However, as a percentage of the total number of people who watch their televisions at that hour, Fox News' ratings are miniscule, as Tiny as Rush Limbaugh's heart.)</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">But...They Beat MSNBC and CNN, so they must be #1 right?<br /><br />Yes, Fox news cable channel got an average of 2.2 million viewers during their primetime shows, compared to 946,000 for CNN and 788,000 for MSNBC. This means TOTAL DOMINANCE!!!!....right?<br /><br />Of course if we were to average this with their ratings for all day, the average would be a lot lower.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html</a><br /><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/12345307/3Q-09-_LIVESD_-P2-ranker">http://www.docstoc.com/docs/12345307/3Q-09-_LIVESD_-P2-ranker</a><br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------<br /><br />But when you directly compare Fox News' ratings to all the competition that is available to American viewers:<br /><br /><blockquote>Based on August 2009 ratings of the Cable channels only:<br /><br />1 USA 2.7<br />2 FOXNews 1.9<br />3 TNT 1.8<br />4 NAN 1.6<br />5 ESPN 1.4<br />6 TBSC 1.3<br />7 HGTV 1.1<br />8 ABC-FAM 0.9<br />9 A & E 1.1<br />10 LIFETIME 1.1<br /><br />SOURCE: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/Cable%20Time%20Period%20Rank%20-%20Week%20of%208-10-09%20%28Live+SD%29.pdf">http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/Cable%20Time%20Period%20Rank%20-%20Week%20of%208-10-09%20(Live+SD).pdf</a><br /></blockquote><br />Then compare this to the ratings of the broadcast TV channels, just released this week:<br /><br /><blockquote>CBS: 11.88 million viewers<br />NBC: 7.4<br />Fox entertainment: 8.4</blockquote>according to the Nielsen Ratings people, when you compare Fox News ratings to the total ratings of all the channels that are available to the 300 million Americans, they are getting 2.2 million out of over 300 million, so less than 1% of Americans watch Fox News at the time when Fox gets it's most viewers. CBS, those annoying liberals, gets over 5 times as many viewers.<br />----------------------------<br /><br />And Fox gets their asses handed to them on the Sunday political talk shows which are available to everyone with an antenna, not just cable viewers:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/sunday_shows/sunday_show_ratings_october_18_141005.asp"></a></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/sunday_shows/sunday_show_ratings_october_18_141005.asp">http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/sunday_shows/sunday_show_ratings_october_18_141005.asp</a><br /><br /><br /></div><table style="text-align: left; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;" width="400"><tbody><tr> <th style="text-align: center;">Network</th> <th align="left">Program</th> <th align="left">Total<br />Viewers</th><th align="left"><br /></th> </tr><tr> <td align="left"><b>NBC</b></td> <td align="left">"Meet the Press"</td> <td align="left">3.02M</td><td align="left"><br /></td> </tr><tr> <td align="left"><b>ABC</b></td> <td align="left">"This Week"</td> <td align="left">2.65M</td><td align="left"><br /></td> </tr><tr> <td align="left"><b>CBS</b></td> <td align="left">"Face the Nation"</td> <td align="left">2.23M</td><td align="left"><br /></td> </tr><tr> <td align="left"><b>FOX</b></td> <td align="left">"Fox News Sunday"</td> <td align="left">1.30M</td><td align="left"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><table style="text-align: left; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;" width="400"><tbody><tr><td align="left"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: left;"><br />So is Fox News dominant, and therefore they represent the views of the majority of Americans, or do they just represent a teeny minority of brown-shirted super-rich racist yahoos? I'm just askin'...<br /></div></div>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-18585110330417855462009-08-27T11:01:00.000-07:002009-09-03T13:49:26.215-07:00My Cure for Health Reform Fears...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/Spx7qz2bxXI/AAAAAAAABg4/fmhR9JqU7rQ/s1600-h/la+cucaracha+on+health+care.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 129px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/Spx7qz2bxXI/AAAAAAAABg4/fmhR9JqU7rQ/s400/la+cucaracha+on+health+care.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376308030576772466" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/Spq_h0JPslI/AAAAAAAABgw/F2s-p5LUtRM/s1600-h/luckovich--health+industry+controls+senators.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 289px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/Spq_h0JPslI/AAAAAAAABgw/F2s-p5LUtRM/s400/luckovich--health+industry+controls+senators.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5375819692874117714" border="0" /></a>and more funny stuff: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0</a><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">-<br />Let's Do Health Care Reform in Several Steps:</span></span><br /></div><br />8/27/2009<br /><br />My opinion:<br /><br />I think most Americans have no idea what health systems are like in any other country because they've never been outside the US. People in Europe can travel to their neighbors so much more easily and see different cultures. I'm guilty of this--I've never left the U.S. either.<br /><br />Fear of the unknown is understandable, but the health care reform debate should be based on truth, not lies. Unfortunately, I think the democrats are trying to reform the entire system at once. People are scared when the see a 1000 page law. I think congress should fix the worst problems first. Like congress should ban insurers from dropping people for pre-existing conditions and limit rate hikes for everyone to the rate of inflation. Even if we don't do the reforms that will cost tax money, we can change regulations and those changes can themselves fix a lot of the inequity.<br /><br />It reminds me of how California's legislature cut back on strip mining abuses 6 years ago. Even though the federal government has this antiquated law that gives away federal land to mining companies, and congress can never get the votes to change it, our state legislature changed the local laws to require every mine to restore the landscape to what it looked like before the mining project. That raised the costs so high that several federal mine giveaways in the desert were dropped by the companies because they knew they couldn't make money doing it.<br />(I also write an enviro blog at <a href="http://rare-earth-news.blogspot.com/"> http://rare-earth-news.blogspot.com</a> . )<br /><br />This is the way we could accomplish the same goals of a government plan by making the health insurers follow rules that curb their profits so much that they will be the ones seeking a federal bailout. And with a bailout comes government control, like at GM and Chrysler. If reform was done in stages, we could do this.<br /><br />Most Americans hate the insurance companies--let's target their abuses right now.<br /><br />We don't have to fix the entire system at once. We can knock down the power of the insurers now and later force them to be part of the fix of the entire system.<br /><br />---Rex Frankel, for StopCorporateGreed.org<br /><br />-----------------------------------<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/thompson-town-hall-packed/"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_0">http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/thompson-town-hall-packed/</span></a><br /><br /><p>“This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_1">FCC</span> regulated channels to see what the <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_2">national weather service</span> of the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_3">national oceanographic and atmospheric administration</span> determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_4">national aeronautics and space administration</span>. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_5">department of agriculture</span> inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_6">food and drug administration</span>.</p><p>At the appropriate time as regulated by the <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_7">US congress</span> and kept accurate by the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_8">national institute of standards</span> and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_9">national highway traffic safety administration</span> approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_10">environmental protection agency</span>, using <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_11">legal tender</span> issed by the <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_12">federal reserve bank</span>. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.</p><p>After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_13">occupational safety and health administration</span>, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_14">fire marshal</span>’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the <span style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_15">local police department</span>.</p><p>I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on <a target="_blank" href="http://freerepublic.com/"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1252010778_16">freerepublic.com</span></a> and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.”</p>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-55943559298390186882009-08-19T18:24:00.000-07:002009-08-19T18:27:47.499-07:00Exposing the Right-Wing's Lies about Health insurance reform<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">-</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root</span></strong></div><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span></strong><br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fact_check_health_poll">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fact_check_health_poll</a><br /><br />By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer – Wed Aug 19, 5:39 pm ET<br /><br />WASHINGTON – The judgment is harsh in a new poll that finds Americans worried about the government taking over health insurance, cutting off treatment to the elderly and giving coverage to illegal immigrants. <span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>Harsh, but not based on facts.</strong></span><br /><br />President Barack Obama's lack of a detailed plan for overhauling health care is letting critics fill in the blanks in the public's mind. In reality, Washington is not working on "death panels" or nationalization of health care.<br /><br />To be sure, presenting Congress and the country with the nuts and bolts of a revamped system of health insurance is no guarantee of success for a president — just ask Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Their famous flop was demonized, too. After all, the devil does lurk in details.<br />It can also lurk in generalities, it seems.<br />Obama is promoting his changes in something of a vacuum, laying out principles, goals and broad avenues, some of which he's open to amending. As lawmakers sweat the nitty gritty, he's doing a lot of listening, and he's getting an earful.<br />A new NBC News poll suggests some of the myths and partial truths about the plans under consideration are taking hold.<br />Most respondents said the effort is likely to lead to a "government takeover of the health care system" and to public insurance for illegal immigrants. Half said it will probably result in taxpayers paying for abortions and nearly that many expected the government will end up with the power to decide when treatment should stop for old people.<br /><br />A look at each of those points:<br /><br />THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.<br />THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.<br />House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said such counseling "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."<br />The bill would prohibit coverage of counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.<br />Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has been a proponent of coverage for end-of-life counseling under Medicare, said such sessions are a voluntary benefit, strictly between doctor and patient, and it was "nuts" to think death panels are looming or euthanasia is part of the equation.<br />But as fellow conservatives stepped up criticism of the provision, he backed away from his defense of it.<br />___<br />THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.<br />THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.<br />___<br /><br />THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.<br />THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.<br />At issue is a proposed "exchange" or "marketplace" in which a new government plan would be one option for people who aren't covered at work or whose job coverage is too expensive. The exchange would offer some private plans as well as the public one, all of them required to offer certain basic benefits.<br />That's a long way from a government takeover. But when Obama tells people they can just continue with the plans they have now if they are happy with them, that can't be taken at face value, either. Tax provisions could end up making it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage, nudging some patients into a public plan with different doctors and benefits. Over time, critics fear, the public plan could squeeze private insurers out of business because they would not be able to compete with the federal government.<br />It's unclear now whether Obama is committed to the public option. He described it recently as "just one sliver" of health reform, suggesting it was expendable if lawmakers could agree on another way to expand affordable coverage. Now the White House is emphasizing his strong support for it.<br /><br />___<br />THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.<br />THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion, but the bill says a beneficiary's own money — not taxpayer funds — must be used to pay for the procedure. How that would be enforced has not been determined.<br />Obama has stated that the U.S. should continue its tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." Current laws prohibiting public financing of abortion would stay on the books.<br />Yet abortion guidelines are not yet clear for the government-supervised insurance exchange. There is strong sentiment in Congress on both sides of the issue.<br />___<br />The poll of 805 people was taken Aug. 15-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-82696017013003546522009-05-26T10:57:00.000-07:002009-05-26T11:22:48.808-07:00Time to start paying...<h1 id="articleTitle" class="articleTitle"></h1><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Have you gotten used to reading your local newspaper on-line for free?</span></span> Yeah, you look at the ads at the same time, so it's a fair trade, you're not really getting it for free, totally. Well, now, the big media corporations got you hooked, and now it's time to make you pay. Just like your local movie theater, you pay $11.50 a ticket and still are forced to watch TV commercials on top of the movie previews. You pay out the wazoo for cable TV and every channel is packed with commercials, unless you pay extra for a channel like HBO that doesn't have commercials. Commercials are everywhere we go -- and no one is paying us to watch them. They are assumed to be what we give up to get free or "cheaper" entertainment.<br /><br />Well, the problem with newpapers, at least the big ones, is that they long ago forgot about local investigative reporting. They have created the opportunity which is being exploited by small-time bloggers. Charging for the crappy content that now is given away won't pull the big newspaper companies out of bankruptcy. Providing a better product is the only way to survive.<br /><br />Here's a thought: pay the local bloggers to write a section of the newspaper.<br /><br />Adapt to the future, or get replaced.<br /><br />--from the big cheeze, Rex Frankel<br />-----------------------------------------------<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Can Internet charges stem newspapers' losses?</span></span><br /></div><br />Publishers hope readers will pay if content is no longer offered free.<br />By Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press<br />Posted: 05/25/2009<br /><a href="http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_12448668">http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_12448668</a><br /><br />The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is a rarity among large U.S. newspapers - it's selling more weekday copies than a decade ago. In Idaho, the Post Register's circulation has remained stable, while many print publications have lost readers to the Internet, where much of their content may be viewed for free. The executives behind the Arkansas and Idaho newspapers think they've been stable because they have been giving free Web site access only to print edition subscribers. Everyone else has to pay. "To just give it all away on a Web site is completely and blindly idiotic," says Roger Plothow, Post Register editor and publisher. That logic is starting to resonate with many publishers, who are preparing to erect toll booths on parts, if not all, of their Web sites. They hope the switch adds to online revenue and helps them keep print subscribers and ads. If it works, it would provide a sorely needed boost for an industry that has seen $11.6billion, or nearly one-fourth, of its annual advertising revenue dry up during the past three years. But ending free access could drive away many online readers and discourage online advertising at a time just as marketing budgets shift to the Internet.<br /><br />As a result, 28 percent of newspaper executives responding to a recent survey by the Associated Press Managing Editors, a group of newspaper executives, said their publications are considering online fees.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Newsday's owner, Cablevision Systems Corp., plans to start charging for online access to the Long Island, N.Y., paper this summer. MediaNews Group, which owns the Daily Breeze and 53 other daily newspapers, has decided to charge for the online versions but hasn't said when. Hearst Corp. is assessing whether online fees could help save its 15 remaining daily newspapers, including the San Francisco Chronicle. </span><br /><br />"Online fees will give people one less reason to stop subscribing to the newspaper" in the print format, said Steven Brill, Journalism Online's co-CEO. "Fewer people will be saying, `Why am I buying this thing when I can get it free online?"' Some commentators say the numbers don't add up. Former newspaper editor Alan Mutter, now an industry consultant and author of the blog, "Reflections of a Newsosaur," doubts most publishers understand how to produce the "content niches" that will cause people to ante up. Yet it's not an impossible task, said Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of Time magazine and now chief executive of the Aspen Institute, a think tank. Charging online fees "could create a discipline on journalism that produces more things of value," Isaacson said. "We could end up getting better journalism and a better business model out of it." <span id="Article"><p></p></span>Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-84719706208732305752009-05-13T11:34:00.000-07:002009-05-13T11:45:59.406-07:00Like good dope dealers...<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">-<br />Big 5 Media Corps. are pissing off cable firms and DirecTV big time by letting the public watch shows for free on the internet;</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fox and NBC are Scheming together to give it to us free, get us hooked, then jack up the price.</span></span><br /></div><br /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-hulu11-2009may11,0,5771665.story">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-hulu11-2009may11,0,5771665.story</a><br /><br />5/11/2009 L.A. Times<br /><br />...But in making a bid for the next generation of Internet- attuned viewers, Hulu's owners have strained their lucrative relationships with cable and satellite operators. Companies like Time Warner Cable Inc. and DirecTV Group Inc. pay cable networks billions of dollars each year to carry programming. Believing that they should have exclusivity because their payments support the enormous cost of producing TV shows, such companies have been pushing back against the Hulu freebies...<br /><br />..."And now people are starting to wonder, do we even need the cable connections?"<br /><br />The country's largest cable operators aren't waiting around to find out the answer. In recent months, the operators have taken a hard line against cable networks for funneling their shows to Hulu. Some have gone so far as to stipulate that cable networks limit the number of episodes they make available online. Others have imposed an outright ban. The strictures buy time for cable operators until they can develop their own response to Hulu....<br /><br />...NBC Universal and News Corp. are considering whether to adopt a cable industry initiative called authentication, which would require users to prove they are pay TV subscribers before they can watch current shows on Hulu.<br /><br />The partners also are discussing setting up a tiered system for online video, with some shows available for free -- such as prime-time network offerings -- while others would be reserved for existing cable TV subscribers.<br /><br />"Everyone is coalescing around a central area -- authentication," said Tony Vinciquerra, chief of Fox's television networks. "If we can move this in the right direction, it will be something relatively seamless to the consumer, and good for business overall."Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35200264.post-84553927286707961292009-04-22T10:31:00.000-07:002009-04-22T10:41:00.049-07:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">After Setting Record for Text-Messaging, Two Men May Finally Get a Life...</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Slaves to their cell phone company rack up a $26,000 bill in 1 month.</span></span><br /></div><br />--Their next record to beat: buying millions of dollars of useless crap on their credit cards from infomercials all in one day! Can they do it? Inquiring swines want to know! Reporting on this exciting story are Billy Bush and Britney Spears for Excess Hollywood...<br /><br /><br />By BILL BERGSTROM, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 22, 7:13 am ET<br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd217">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd217</a><br /><br />PHILADELPHIA – Their thumbs sure must be sore. Two central Pennsylvania friends spent most of March in a text-messaging record attempt, exchanging a thumbs-flying total of 217,000. For one of the two, that meant an inches-thick itemized bill for $26,000.<br /><br />Nick Andes, 29, and Doug Klinger, 30, were relying on their unlimited text messaging plans to get them through the escapade, so Andes didn't expect such a big bill.<br /><br />"It came in a box that cost $27.55 to send to me," he said Tuesday. He said he "panicked" and called T-Mobile, which told The Associated Press it had credited his account and was investigating the charges.<br /><br />The two Lancaster-area residents have been practically nonstop texters for about a decade since they attended Berks Technical Institute together.<br /><br />That led Andes to search for the largest monthly text message total he could find posted online: 182,000 sent in 2005 by Deepak Sharma in India.<br /><br />Andes and Klinger were able to set up their phones to send multiple messages. During a February test run they found they could send 6,000 or 7,000 messages on some days, prompting the March messaging marathon.<br /><br />"Most were either short phrases or one word, 'LOL' or 'Hello,' things like that, with tons and tons of repeats," said Andes, reached by phone.<br /><br />Andes sent more than 140,000 messages, and Klinger sent more than 70,000 to end the month with a total of just over 217,000, he said.<br /><br />A spokesman for Guinness World Records didn't immediately return messages asking whether it would be certified as a record.<br /><br />April came as a relief to Andes' wife, Julie, who had found his phone tied up with texting when she tried to call him on lunch breaks.<br /><br />"She was tired of it the first few days into it," Andes said.Rex Frankelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02628414635820202044noreply@blogger.com0