TampaYankee

I'm shocked... just shocked that there is adulterated olive oil making the rounds!! Imagine something of some value being knocked off... by it's own industry nonetheless. I guess there aren't as many extravirgins to go around as we were lead to believe. What's next? Adulterating gasoline with alocohol? Olive oil is very beneficial, but as a boy in the South we only knew olives of the green and black variety and I remember asking what is that black thing? When told it was an olive I replied no way it tasted like one. Did the dye make it taste that way? Do you have any youtube moments of Bush and Regan in thier boats dumping their old batteries and thermometers in the ocean. That would be priceless. If I recall correctly, we already had mercury-in-fish warnings when Reagan came into office. Not sayin' he made it better but that Japanes village went dimentia in the fifties. Of course that was due to a local factory. I use olive oil too, mostly for salads and sauteing, when I think of it -- old dogs and new tricks sort of thing. I was doing good to get past the crisco. If I made buscuits from scratch I'd use lard. At least that is my fantasy. Both actually: making buscuits and the lard.

Lots of good info so far. I'm a pretty good cook if I do say so myself. My family agrees as well -- not to blow my own horn too much. Good cooking requires the right quality ingredients and good technique. It will take some practice to acquire the technique and a little time but not a lot. The secret to most good cooking is aromatic veggies: onions, celery, garlic and to a lesser extent carrots and bell peppers. They add tremendous flavor to almost all savory dishes: stews, chili, chicken and rice, smothered steak, meatloaf, gumbo,... Onion is essentially universal, celery nearly so, garlic in smaller amounts is essential to many dishes but overwhelms some. Carrots slightly sweeten and bell peppers add a subtle bite. Hot peppers add heat and flavor. Dehyrated versions are covenient and acceptable thought fall short of the fresh. Most often these veggies are diced and sauted in a little oil or butter to start a preparation. They can be sweated to translucent or browned lightly depending on the effect desired. Depends on the dish and personal taste. That will come with the recipe or with personal taste. I prefer vegetable oil over canola for taste whether frying or on salads. Peanut oil with a higher burning point is the best for frying if you are not allergic but it is very pricey so I use vegetable. The other big secret to good cooking ( in addition to the aromatic veggies) is browing meat/chicken in the intial cooking stage. Alton Brown can go on for hours explaining the details if you care. Brown bits = flavor. For example, if making chili or stew, brown the meat on all sides in a small amount of hot oil, just enough wet the bottom of the pan. You can saute aromatics after or before but if before you must remove before browning meat, else things will burn. Also brown meats/chicken in small amounts. Overloading pan causes meats to steam rather than brown as the juices exude. After browning throw everything back in the pot and use some liquid and scrape up the brown bits of flavor to incorporate in the cooking. The liquid could be a half cup or so of water, dry wine, tomatos with juice etc. depending on the recipe. Spices and herbs on hand should include garlic powder, onion power, oregano or italian seasoning, thyme, parsley, rosemary, papprika, chili powder, cumin. For chili always keep a couple of envelopes of McCormicks or Old Elpaso Chili seasonging in the cupboard. I also use taco seasoning in chili, an envelope of each for a couple of pounds of ground beef. That might be a bit much if cooking for one. If you are cooking a chili or smothered steak type of dish remember to take your time cooking. Keep covered unless a lot of liquid needs to be reduced. It takes time for the flavors to meld together or tough meat to cook tender. Count on at least 75 minutes, if not 90 minutes, on very low heat and stir every ten minutes or so. (Beef stews will be on the long end of that depending on size cut meat. Add any dinner veggies in the last 30 minutes else they will overcook.) The same can be accomplished without your continuing supervision by using a crock pot, however the miniumum cook time is four hours on high setting. If you are out for the day set on low and it goes for 7 - 8 hours. Remember to brown the meat in a regular pot before adding to the crock pot and don't forget to include the brown bits loosened with a little liquid. Easiest/fastest things to cook: roasts, steaks and chops. Salt, pepper, add any other spice lightly and cook in pan or oven on rack. Obviously roasts take time. they can either be browned in a skillet before being finished in the oven or directly in the oven under high heat (450) for the first 25 mintues and then turned down to 325-350 for remainder of time. The same works for roasting whole chicken too. Fish is quick to broil or saute or poach or steam, slightly longer to bake. Add butter or lemon or cajun seasoning as desired. Cooking can seem pretty daunting to the uninitiated but it is really not difficult mostly and depends only on a few underlying principles. Start on easy things and progress with practice and experimentation. It may take a couple of times to get a specific dish to your liking. As with most everything, practice makes better.

It is quite simple. The same reason most mammals mark their territory with urine. It's all territorial, whether because he doesn't want to share the person, or compete for price, or availability, or all of the above. Some people believe in communal sharing, others believe in hoarding. It' all as old as dirt. Ot it could be simple jealousy. Not everyone feels they can compete with those who have sparkling personalities and generous hearts.

One striking difference is that Prop 8 is a constituional ammendment enacted by the electorate, not a law of the Legislature. Thus because it is based on a statewide popular vote, one might argue that this is not a clear cut example of one party using courts to overturn legislation passed ostensibly by the other party in majority. A second difference is that legislatures employ staff attorneys to vet legislation for constitutional issues. There is little guarantee that referendum initiatives are so well vetted thus there is less presumption of verified consitutionality. Does that vitiate the nub of establishing a precedent for lower courts overturning state law? Probably not. There is the reason for establishing a process over policy. What seems a good example of expediency in one instance may set a precedent that permits a poor example in another instance. Of course, this boils down to whose ox is being gored. Rest assured that both sides ox gets gored at one time or another. This is one problem with doing away with the filibuster. It sucks when you are in the majority. However, you can also count on being in the minority in the future. Pendulums swing both ways.

It is only logical and right that Obama appeal this ruling. Although it would be nice to have this over and done immediately and this ruling is one way to accomplish that, I have had this nag in the back of my mind that it is the duty of the Administration to keep the precedent of supporting the Law of the Land unless duly overturned by the SCOTUS. This dichotomy of feelings on my part finally crystalized when I watched Rachel and her guest Walter Dellinger, former Solicitor General under Clinton. Dellinger said that Obama has no choice but to appeal and that it is the correct thing to do. He pointed out that it is terrible precedent to leave it to a Federal District Judge to strike down a Law of the Land, even DADT, without the Executive seeking to have the action validated or vacated by the SCOTUS. He gave the example of, under a conservative GOP President, some right wing judge strking down the Health Care law or some facet of it, or any other piece of legislation that offended the Judge's sense of Constitutionality. The DADT precedent would allow this to stand without that President seeking to uphold the law. Dellinger suggests that Obama should appeal the ruling to the SCOTUS and also that he should take the position in filing the appeal that DADT is the duly enacted Law of the Land, that it is unconstitutonal, and that the SCOTUS should strike it down. This continues the precedent that the Executive DOJ support all duly enacted laws passed by Congress unless overturned by the country's highest court. It also throws the weight of the Executive Branch behind overturning the law on a constitutional basis. Dellinger thinks there are more than enough votes on the SCOTUS to overturn DADT as a matter of law. I wish I were as confident althouth I think it will happen. We cannot establish the precedent that permits lower level Judges on their own to overturn Congressionally enacted laws or Executive Ordersaand let the Executive wash his hands of it. There simply too much potential for political mischief to infect the judicial process.

It sickens me that the Rich get one justice and everyone else gets another -- even in a Democrat Administration. That is one of the things wrong with this country -- money talks. Where is the hard time for all the raping and pillaging that these guys created???

Countrywide co-founder, 2 others settle with SEC Lawyers: Former Countrywide CEO Mozilo and 2 others agree to settle fraud charges with SEC Jacob Adelman, Associated Press Writer, On Friday October 15, 2010, 2:38 pm LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Countrywide Financial Corp. co-founder Angelo Mozilo and two other former executives have agreed to pay tens of millions of dollars to settle civil fraud and insider trading charges with federal regulators, lawyers said in federal court Friday. Mozilo and the others were to face trial on the charges next week. FILE - This March 7, 2008 file photo shows Angelo Mozilo, founder and former CEO of Countrywide Financial Corporation, testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. A judge ruled Friday Oct. 8, 2010 that federal regulators in an upcoming trial can use a message written by Mozilo, in which he called himself a "magnet" for prosecution. (AP Photos/Susan Walsh, File) Mozilo agreed to repay $45 million in ill-gotten profits and $22.5 million in civil penalties. Former Countrywide President David Sambol will repay $5 million in ill-gotten profits and $520,000 in civil penalties, and former Chief Financial Officer Eric P. Sieracki will pay $130,000 in civil penalties. Under the agreement, the three men did not admit wrongdoing. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused the men of misleading shareholders about the quality of the loans on the Countrywide's books. The civil complaint also accused Mozilo of acting on his inside knowledge of the company's precarious state when he sold shares between November 2006 and October 2007 ahead of its collapse, reaping more than $139 million. Mozilo was not in court when the settlement was announced. The former Countrywide chairman is the nation's highest-profile defendant yet to face trial for risky business practices leading to the housing collapse that sent the country into recession. In legal filings, regulators portrayed the three defendants as engaging in a single-minded pursuit of market dominance, even if it meant knowingly taking disastrous risks. The company was a major player in the market for high-risk subprime mortgages and became the biggest U.S. mortgage lender overall before it spiraled into disaster when the mortgage meltdown hit. Bank of America Corp. bought Countrywide in July 2008. The settlement talks involving Mozilo were disclosed after U.S. District Judge John F. Walter filed a notice Thursday for trial lawyers to attend a status conference Friday. Countrywide's lending practices are reportedly also the subject of a criminal probe in Los Angeles. U.S. attorney's office spokesman Thom Mrozek declined to comment about the situation. Countrywide was based in Calabasas, Calif. See original article at: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Countrywide-cofounder-2-apf-1381976931.html?x=0

I cannot believe that any porn store would be doing business like that in this day and age. There is so much porn on the net and you can get anything a store would sell via mail if not download. I suspect they are going for more than the media -- maybe to greet and meet?

There is a simple explanation for this. For all the preaching and bluster about family values and the moral majority, when it comes right down to it the one universal motivator among Republicans is taxes. Other shortcomings aare readily forgiven. A strong second, though not as widespread among the evangelicals, is socialism for Big Business. It's ok for government to underwrite business just not the middle and working classes for jobs, health care, education, etc. They really do believe in trickle down -- let the lower classes fatten on the crumbs from the table. If they don't then obviously they are lazy.

Looks like something British to me.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/14/5291879-obama-admin-to-appeal-dadt-ruling Obama admin. to appeal DADT ruling From NBC's Pete Williams The Justice Department has asked a federal court to put a hold on the judge's order this week that declared the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional. "The Government intends to appeal the Court's decision. During the pendency of that appeal, the military should not be required to suddenly and immediately restructure a major personnel policy that has been in place for years, particularly during a time when the Nation is involved in combat operations overseas," said Clifford Stanley, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness in documents filed this afternoon in a California federal court. The magnitude of repealing the DADT law and policy is demonstrated by the Department's ongoing efforts to study the implications of repealing DADT." What's more, Stanley says, "an injunction before the appeal in this case has run its course will place gay and lesbian servicemembers in a position of grave uncertainty. If the Court's decision were later reversed, the military would be faced with the question of whether to discharge any servicemembers who have revealed their sexual orientation in reliance on this Court's decision and injunction. Such an injunction therefore should not be entered before appellate review has been completed."

Air Force DADT Enforcement Has Stopped, According To Official's E-Mail AP / The Huffington Post First Posted: 10-14-10 04:32 PM | Updated: 10-14-10 10:05 PM WASHINGTON - A gay rights group says the Air Force has told its legal officers to stop enforcing "don't ask, don't tell" because of a judge's ruling Tuesday. But the order to halt discharges could end soon. The Obama administration will ask the judge to allow the ban on homosexual servicemen and women to continue in force pending an appeal to reverse the ruling, according to a person familiar with the discussions. Lawyer Dan Woods said his client, Log Cabin Republicans, which won the "don't ask, don't tell" ruling on Tuesday, has been notified that the Justice Department "will appeal and seek a stay" in the case later Thursday. That word was confirmed by the person in the government knowledgeable about the administration's discussions. The government source said the delay in responding to the judge's order resulted because the Obama White House weighed in on the Justice Department's handling of the case. This person, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's internal deliberations, said a couple of White House lawyers did not want to seek a court order that would temporarily suspend the judge's ruling. The source said the process was back on track and that court papers seeking the stay will be filed. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation" or other proceeding to dismiss gay service members. The 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law says gays may serve in the military but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation. Phillips wrote that the law "infringes the fundamental rights" of current and prospective service members. The administration's decision to appeal the "don't ask, don't tell" ruling comes just one day after it filed an appeal against a separate judges ruling that part of the Defense Of Marriage Act is "unconstitutional" because it withholds health and retirement benefits for the spouses of federal employees in same-sex marriages. Before news that Department of Justice would appeal Phillips' ruling, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network circulated an e-mail on Thursday that it said was written by the Air Force's Judge Advocate General Richard Harding. In that e-mail, Harding says the Defense Department "will abide" by a court order that says the military can no longer discharge service members who are openly gay. Such guidance would represent the first time in decades that the military would not discriminate based on sexual orientation. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that "don't ask, don't tell" is "going to end" -- it's just a matter of how. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law should be considered only after the Pentagon completes a study of the impact of lifting the ban, including an assessment of service members' attitudes toward the change. The study is due Dec. 1. Allowing gays to serve openly "is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training," Gates said. "It has enormous consequences for our troops." See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/14/air-force-dadt-enforcemen_n_763192.html

Air Force DADT Enforcement Has Stopped, According To Official's E-Mail AP / The Huffington Post First Posted: 10-14-10 04:32 PM | Updated: 10-14-10 07:50 PM WASHINGTON - A gay rights group says the Air Force has told its legal officers to stop enforcing "don't ask, don't tell" because of a judge's ruling Tuesday. But the order to halt discharges could end soon. The Obama administration will ask the judge to allow the ban on homosexual servicemen and women to continue in force pending an appeal to reverse the ruling, according to a person familiar with the discussions. Lawyer Dan Woods said his client, Log Cabin Republicans, which won the "don't ask, don't tell" ruling on Tuesday, has been notified that the Justice Department "will appeal and seek a stay" in the case later Thursday. That word was confirmed by the person in the government knowledgeable about the administration's discussions. The government source said the delay in responding to the judge's order resulted because the Obama White House weighed in on the Justice Department's handling of the case. This person, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's internal deliberations, said a couple of White House lawyers did not want to seek a court order that would temporarily suspend the judge's ruling. The source said the process was back on track and that court papers seeking the stay will be filed. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation" or other proceeding to dismiss gay service members. The 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law says gays may serve in the military but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation. Phillips wrote that the law "infringes the fundamental rights" of current and prospective service members. The administration's decision to appeal the "don't ask, don't tell" ruling comes just one day after it filed an appeal against a separate judges ruling that part of the Defense Of Marriage Act is "unconstitutional" because it withholds health and retirement benefits for the spouses of federal employees in same-sex marriages. Before news that Department of Justice would appeal Phillips' ruling, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network circulated an e-mail on Thursday that it said was written by the Air Force's Judge Advocate General Richard Harding. In that e-mail, Harding says the Defense Department "will abide" by a court order that says the military can no longer discharge service members who are openly gay. Such guidance would represent the first time in decades that the military would not discriminate based on sexual orientation. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that "don't ask, don't tell" is "going to end" -- it's just a matter of how. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law should be considered only after the Pentagon completes a study of the impact of lifting the ban, including an assessment of service members' attitudes toward the change. The study is due Dec. 1. Allowing gays to serve openly "is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training," Gates said. "It has enormous consequences for our troops." See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/14/air-force-dadt-enforcemen_n_763192.html

We are a tight-assed society. They want to burn Bret Favre at the stake for privately carrying on over a cell phone with some sweetie. BFD, his private business. The NFL should stay the fuck out of it until he is fucking on the field on in the locker room. What is it with this society. We ought to be up to our asses in diamnonds in this country with all the tight asses. I'd certainly take James up on his request.

This really puts the onus on Obama to put his money where is mouth is -- to appeal or not to appeal. I suspect the 60 day stay was negotiated with DOJ to give them time to consider actopms, but to also get past the mid-terms and to give Congress a chance to act. One thing is sure to me, the next House is unlikely to move on DADT again.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Enforcement Must Be Halted, Federal Judge Rules JULIE WATSON | 10/12/10 04:09 PM | AP SAN DIEGO — A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops. U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not. "This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. Servicemembers United is the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans. U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the department is under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips' ruling stand. Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week nonjury trial in federal court in Riverside. She said the Log Cabin Republicans "established at trial that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act irreparably injures servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights." She said the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment. "Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," Phillips said. She said Department of Justice attorneys did not address these issues in their objection to her expected injunction. Before issuing her order, Phillips had asked for input from Department of Justice attorneys and the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement. The Log Cabin Republicans asked her for an immediate injunction so the policy can no longer be used against any U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. "The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the military who are fighting and dying for our country," said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group. Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military service members. The Department of Justice attorneys also said Congress should decide the issue – not her court. Phillips disagreed, saying the law doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training. Legal experts say the Obama administration could choose to not appeal her ruling to end the ban – but Department of Justice attorneys are not likely to stay mum since Obama has made it clear he wants Congress to repeal the policy. "The president has taken a very consistent position here, and that is: 'Look, I will not use my discretion in any way that will step on Congress' ability to be the sole decider about this policy here," said Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that supports a repeal. Tracy Schmaler, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, said the government was reviewing Phillips' ruling Tuesday and had no immediate comment. Gay rights advocates say they worry they lost a crucial opportunity to change the law when Senate Republicans opposed the defense bill earlier this month because of a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal provision. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult – if not impossible – next year. Woods said the administration should be seizing the opportunity to let a judge do what politics has been unable to do. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but bans those who are openly gay. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/dont-ask-dont-tell-judge_n_759960.html

I had a dog and lived with cats. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Over all, I'll take a houseboy after he has been housebroken.

In this country everything at that level is political. All you have to do is look at the Senate Republicans blocking supoenas for the BP spill. If the DOJ goes after them the GOP cries politics. Money talks in this country and guides almost everything that has strong financial or power influences. That doesnt mean money prevails every time just the vast majority of times. Both parties or a great many in each can be bought. In America it is called politics.

Company Head Arrested Over Sludge Torrent in Hungary BUDAPEST — The managing director of the company whose reservoir unleashed a lethal torrent of red sludge on three villages last week has been arrested, the Hungarian prime minister announced before Parliament on Monday. He will be charged with criminal negligence leading to a public catastrophe, and if convicted could face a sentence of up to 10 years, according to a government spokeswoman. For thr complete article see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/world/europe/12hungary.html?_r=1&hp It is refreshing to see a country actually hold business executives criminally liable for their negligent actions instead of just letting their stockholders pay corporate fines that are small in relationship to the damage done and to the money made from the shortcuts. It seems business doesn't own the Hungarian Republic. Good for them.

What does it matter? Once the GOP majority is sufficient to overcome the handful of moderates members that might reach compromise with the Democrats on occasion, the GOP will steamroll whatever it wants in the House. It could be argued that if the Dems lose any potential for compromise it might be better to give the GOP overwhelming majority and with it ownership of whatever does or does not get done. Barring unforseen circumstances, we are in for two years of government stalemate. The Dems ought to push through everything they can in the next two months. After that the party is over. It remains to be seen what those Bluedogs and Conservadems that get retired choose to do in the lameduck session.

PT Barnum was no fool, he just gave a quick and easy count of them, sort of -- one born every minute. Mutliply that by a $1 and you see how quickly 50 million mounts up.

You had to add insult to injury? You get zero points for restraint.

Whoa, yeah... how did I overlook that one. He did a 180 fron the old man. Bush I built the greatest international coalition for the First Gulf War since WWII I believe. He was extremely effective at building international consensus as W was at destroying international consensus. Sometimes it is hard for me to imagine at how badly Bush II chose to be at international relations. Another obvious one is turning a budget surplus on the day he entered into office into a screaming budget deficit they day he left office. This by the historically fiscally conservative Republicans holding the White House and Congress. It is obvious to me anyway that Bush II was in way over his head. This is the problem when a political faction chooses an inferior candidate to front for them as they take over the power structure of the country. This is the real danger of Caribou Barbie and the other Tea Party clowns. Yeah, their backers will line their pockets with their useful idiots in office but those idiots will do all sorts or drastic damage before their term is up. I guess that doesnt matter to those who profit. Unfortunately, this is very true and very very disturbing for moving ahead on the American Political Front on a rational basis. With the plethora of news and faux news outlets the competition is very keen to acquire politicans and political personalities for interviews and comments. Rather than challenge guests with penetrating questions the outlets serve up softballs so as not to offend those guests who they hope to see return in the future. Thus all kinds of political crap is promulgated unchallenged for what it is. In the old days there were three broadcast outlets and the newspapers that didnt have to worry about catering to guests in order encourage return visits. They were the only game in town and the press served its legitimate purpose. Today, the 'press' seek ratings and advertising. Unvarnished informing of the country has no place in the current 'press' model even though some would have you believe there has been no loss of fidelity in the press' mission. Hogwash!! Much of the 'new press' has become polarized catering to a political sector and highlighting the politics and politicians of a sympathethic stripe. This looks politically driven and to some extent it is but underenath the ratings and ads are not to be missed as a prime motivator. Even so-called middle of the road press outlets pull their punches in order not to offend guests so they will return. How does all of this contribute to an informed electorate? It doesn't. It works to misinform the electorate or bias the electorate intentionally or not, but that is ok if it builds ratings and sells advertising. The electorate has to read beyond the news outlets and piece together what is going on in the country from non-poltical stories from unbiases sources. Such unbiased sources willing to pursue the hard issues and call fraud when it is presented by either side are fewer and more obscure every year. Most of the electorate doesnt have the time or take the time to ferret out the real story. So the game is to have parties and groups sway the electorate without pretty much any signgificant impartial press to challenge it. That is the kind of press that seeks out polls comparing a less than two year president steering us through the worst economy in 80 years to an eight year fiasco. That is what substitutes for a press that challenges both sides about their positions and policies. Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee us an informed democratic republic.

Funny you should notice. I made a post and then sought to edit/add to it. Imagine my chagrin when I noticed that I had repeated the orginal post twice more, albeit with the edits. I deleted one first thinking I had eliminated the lone duplicate. Then I noticed another duplicate lurking in the queue. Knowing when to stop digging... I said fuck it and deleted the second dupe and gave up on my lost cause to edit the original. Sometimes you just have to know when to throw in the towell.

That is not the way monoplies work. No competition means crap for service at high fees. Where is the surprise? I had hoped that telecom companies would have undertaken competition with cable companies but that seems not to have materialized broadly. There is no room for 'some enterprising young lad could start a company that offers decent cheap cable service.' Congress has guaranteed that. Just another example of Big Business buying its way into favored position at the expense of the middle class.