| |
" For every evil under the sun there is a remedy ...
February 02 2008 06:57 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
Internet failure hits two continents >>
-Story Highlights
-Extensive Internet failure has affected much of Asia, the Middle East, north Africa
-NEW: Two undersea cables believed damaged, possibly by a ship's anchor
-It has caused major disruptions to business, television and phone services
-Several reports say damaged cable in the Mediterranean could take a week to fix
Show comments (0)
December 13 2007 04:29 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
Looking back at 2007, here's a book that responds to the pained confusion and grasping for the familiar on the cusp of massive technological and social change. Remember all the alarmists warning about the end of the world prior to 2000 and prophesizing about the coming millennium. They capitalized on fear of change. In 2007, Andrew Keen's book "The Cult of the Amateur," charges that Web 2.0, i.e. Citizen Journalism and participatory online media such as WikiPedia, StumbleUpon, and DiggIt, are destroying American culture.
He asserts that in our haste to hold the gatekeepers of information accountable, we are fast replacing them with a medium that has no gatekeepers, hence, no accountability whatsoever. Thus, he suggests, we are far worse off than we were to begin with.
First off, while making his case against Web 2.0, he oversimplifies many issues and so merely succeeds at the very thing he accuses amateurs of: shallow judgment. But then, we have to remember, he’s selling a product and like most online advertisers, he has maybe a couple seconds to make the sale so the title is really the clincher. And it works. No doubt, there’s a huge market for reinforcement of the status quo and the silencing of the rabble of commonfolk. The choir he preaches to is most likely, anyone inconvenienced by change, unable or unwilling to adapt to change, and well, let’s face it, anyone who likes to read books about how America is destroying itself. I’m sure this one’s a best-seller over in India and China (where a sizable chunk of our American dollars and jobs are going).
Keen shames Americans for being cheapskates and squeezing the internet for all its worth, for frittering away hours with idle chatter or worse, earnest, dilettantish dialogue, and for putting the "free" back in free time. Nevermind that the Internet is hardly free or that much of the time is spent on successful websites owned by media conglomerates making money off ad revenue. He scolds us for our impertinence in thinking it’s our place to hold our betters' feet to the fire.
Supposedly, our lapse of attention is pointedly a campaign to hold the gatekeepers of information accountable. Yet realistically, if that were the case, what simpler and more democratic means would we have at our disposal than to ignore them?
If, say, a particular publisher has managed to disenchant its former patrons, the responsibility rests with the publication to rise to the challenge and demonstrate its worth anew. It's not our responsibility in a "free" market to be loyal patrons of any media publication that has failed to fulfill its intended purpose, sustain our interest, or at the very least, suspend disbelief. Since when has American culture rewarded the loser of the contest with first-prize? The innovators are finding new ways to engage our attention and so they have won our attention. And although it may not be profitable for some, it may be the best thing for many, many others. As a result of participatory media, we interact more, collaborate more, write more, and compose our thoughts more carefully (well, we all do what we can). Even if nobody reads our personal blogs, op-eds, or articles, or comments, it’s something we each accomplished and something we might not otherwise have thought to attempt if it wasn’t all the rage where everyone was doing it. Is this effort less valuable than to simply drive to the store and purchase something someone else accomplished? Frankly, I don’t see how any of this expansion of knowledge or the extension of our circle of acquaintances beyond our immediate vicinity can be a bad thing for humankind or specifically, American culture. America is best known as a melting pot for many cultures and the Internet is a vehicle for voluntary integration and collaboration. No one is forcing anyone to visit websites that have participatory media. There are plenty of read-only sites on the Internet. If that's not enough, I suppose there will probably always be a fringe of separatists calling for a return to the old ways and better control over the masses, resulting in a limit to our access to information and to each other. Perhaps they’ll succeed in having their way but I for one sincerely hope the Internet users, the Internet community, and Internet mediums continue to evolve freely and democratically and hope that Tennessee Folk will someday soon (once finished) play a valuable, if only a minor part.
The free dissemination of information is not all bad news for traditional media and institutions of higher learning. The more intelligently-run organizations are adapting, as must we all. Those that are not, well, you know how that goes. It’s sink or swim. But of course, there are some that are still floundering to find their way (on those the jury is still out). Will they learn to adapt? Stay tuned! Buy their product out of loyalty--so Keen seems to imply--or if for no other reason, out of morbid curiosity to see if it still sucks. Just keep those pro-culture dollars coming.
Why do we need gate-keepers? I translate that as just keepers. We need a keeper supposedly, because we need others to do all the mental heavy lifting. Because we are seen as a nation of mental children. But then, doesn't it follow that exercising our brains through experimental discourse will grow a stronger and more capable, adult mind? Doesn't it also follow that widespread collaboration will lead to sustainable peace and productivity? It simply takes time.
I think Americans are losing their childlike trust of gatekeepers in general. We're growing up. It's inevitable. But what does this mean for the experts and the elite? Well, what should happen?
If someone hadn’t decided Americans were better off not knowing the full story about the evidence used as justification for attacking Iraq after 9/11, why we might not have killed so many people and spent so much money in the process. Thousands of lives and billions upon billions of dollars later…who’s ruining culture? Good looking out, experts and gatekeepers of information. We can tell you’ve really got humanity’s best interest at heart.
Speaking of which, does it strike you that some publishers have lost confidence in their ability to excel at their job and be rewarded for their excellence? Take the American news services, for instance. Challenged by wider public access to free information, rather than step up the investigative reporting (what we expect to find prioritized in a news medium), some have responded by doing the opposite: cutting corners by paying less or retaining fewer full-time reporters on staff. I may not be qualified to judge the ins and outs of the industry but from a layman's perspective, I have to ask, will this improve or devalue the product? You know my vote. Are you, like I am, dismayed to see some celebrity’s embarrassing scandal plastering the major news media for weeks or months on end? I mean, maybe once or twice for the novelty but surely they must realize the novelty quickly wears off and leads to boredom. And does this inspire you to return to that source for serious news content? It doesn’t inspire my confidence. News publications should realize that since they are no longer monopolizing our full attention, there’s no need to attempt to be everything-to-everybody. Rather than whine about change and competition, we all should endeavor to excel at something and be of service. Be useful. My advice as a customer (and remember, the customer is ALWAYS right) is that news media should prioritize important NEWS (not attention-whoring scandal) and then prove to be a valuable, credible, and unbiased resource for the most current information. Even my local newspapers figured that one out. Kudos to them.
Did I emphasize enough how sick I am of celebrity dirt? I’m very sick of celebrity dirt. Isn’t everyone? Evidently not. Perhaps some do come to CNN to see Britney Spear’s bald head. But then some people only log online to look at porn. If you spread out a smörgåsbord so everyone will find a little something, soon we’ll be finding porn on CNN. It would be nice if we had the option to filter out the garbage from the legit news. Oh, yeah. We can just skip CNN and go to BBC News and run across Britney’s bald head less often. Oh, but wait, that would be destroying American Culture.
Lastly, in The Cult of the Amateur, Keen’s barbs are not solely reserved for the tools of Web 2.0, he packs a few for their alleged accomplices, such as Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig and skirts libel (if Lessig demonstrated Keen’s dearth of humor about the matter, he might be faced with a lawsuit):
“ In a twisted kind of Alice in Wonderland, down-the-rabbit-hole logic, Silicon Valley visionaries such as Stanford law professor and Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig and cyberpunk William Gibson laud the appropriation of intellectual property. ” (p24)
Enjoy a cheerful rebuttal by Lawrence Lessig>>
I LOVE the way Lessig then proceeds to set up a Wiki>> so readers may collaborate on Lessig's critique of the fallacies contained in Keen’s book! Keen should have seen that coming. Or perhaps he hoped for as much. All this attention adds up to increased sales, I imagine. How clever of Keen. Or as Lessig says, BRILLIANT! Lessig's response is, of course, followed by many comments (ala web 2.0) that I personally found insightful and well worth the read. One in particular managed to sum up the message in Keen's book with one sentence, "Only Professionals Should Be Trusted".
Well put, Fellow Amateur. Blog on!
Look what Keen has to say about search engines:
"Take Google, for example, the economic paragon of a truly successful Web 2.0 media company. With a market cap of approximately $150 billion, the Silicon Valley company took in $6.139 billion in revenue and $1.465 billion in profits in 2005. Telling is the fact that unlike companies such as Time Warner or Disney that create and produce movies, music, magazines, and television, Google is a parasite; it creates no content of its own. (p135) In terms of value creation, there is nothing there apart from its links." (p135)
To Keen, my advice is: Best to leave the hubris, spin, and bias to the amateurs. After all, everyone has an opinion and they're giving it away for free whereas your book will set a reader back $20. But then, what does that matter so long as you’re selling and we’re buying. That’s what American Culture is all about?
Show comments (0)
December 03 2007 06:47 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
As if the Military Commissions Act of 2006 wasn't injury enough, now THIS>>
Thank Knoxville Rep. John Duncan for voting against H.R. 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Ask Corker and Lamarr to vote against it in the Senate.
Should we remind our legislators that violence against another citizen is already a crime. Inciting others towards breaking the law is also already against the law.
Look, big surprise, even progressive TN rep. Steve Cohen voted for it>> And he was criticized by conservatives and religious folks for voting for the Hate Crime bill because it was [his critics said] legislating thought-crime. And for needlessly making up new laws for things that were already illegal.
In his defense, I guess he thought he was doing the right thing by standing up for the victims of hate-crimes.
Likewise, our legislators are trying to protect US from bad-guys. And they must feel they have to be tough on terrorism. Yet they must fail to see the contradiction of destroying the Constitution to save it and the absurdity of robbing us of our freedoms in order to save us from terrorism. It's like a badly-written action drama where the so-called-hero shoots into a crowd of innocent civilians to stop the bad guy. Instead of an oath to protect the Constitution, they ought to swear not to harm it and while they're at it, remember not to harm the 99.99% of innocent Americans in their way.
Show comments (0)
November 16 2007 02:31 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
My reaction to the open-ed "Ron Paul's Radical Views"
by Mike Kuykendall
."I have written previously about Representative Ron Paul's extremist views, but with his surging fundraising and steadily climbing poll numbers it seems another visit to this deluded Libertarian's views is in order.
Many of my non-political friends have asked my opinion on Paul. They are seduced by his anti-war views and GOP underdog status, and somehow consider him a real alternative to the current crop of warmongering Republican and "celebrity" Democratic candidates." [ read article>> ].
My long response:
I'm a former Democrat against preemptive military aggression and am crossing over and voting for Ron Paul in the primary. (We can do that in my state.)
If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, I'm betting the majority of conservatives (give or take the strict pro-war minority) will buck up and rally around him, plus he'll win a lot of anti-war, fringe, and not-Hillary vote. He could WIN against Hillary because of her stance and record on the civil liberties and on the Middle East, etc.
From my perspective, bothering to show up and vote for any of these top-tier candidates from either party is the worst demonstration of adult naivete' Like it makes a difference which of them you vote for, whether it's Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee. At this point, reinforcing the status-quo is a masochistic impulse to see how much worse things will get before they get better. I'm not saying someone like Ron Paul would always be the best choice for president. At this point in time, he might just be what this country needs though. In better times, he would not be my first choice. For certain, Hilly Clinton would not be my choice. Ron Paul is most definitely the lesser of the Republican evils and less evil than the Clintons. As for the rest of the Dems, I think she's got that locked up. The top three are so similar, she'll win by virtue of celebrity. (She is a Senator and former First Lady of two terms). Some of the more extremist lefties are really bugged by Ron Paul's views but really, I think they're just getting overworked. If he gets elected, he'll have to work with congress and senate to accomplish anything. I think he's going to make some strides in some areas but less in others. I definitely think he'll wield that power of veto on war spending. Think congress will overturn it? Doubtful.
We should stop acting like voting is solely about backing candidates because they reflect all of our views...most of us must prioritize our issues and make concessions on the rest...sometimes we might back someone because they're the right person for a particular purpose addressing a particular need at a specific point in time. I think that now is the time to tighten the belt and pare down a government that's surging out of control toward fascist Imperialism. We're living beyond our means. And Ron Paul is not afraid to point both out. Once we get some things back to a comfortable and stable level, maybe it will be time for a more liberal change/choice in a presidential candidate or more socialist type programs if it's what the people want. Let's just ensure that meanwhile (as has been the case with the present psycho POTUS), no more changes take place that damage the elastic nature of our present system of checks and balances.
I'm flexible enough to allow for someone like Ron Paul during a time of extreme national debt and the threat of long-term commitment to a wartime economy that will destroy the dollar and leave us at the mercy of our debtors but there's one thing I will not abide is our foreign policy of being a complete jerk and a bully so Hillary Clinton is not an option. At least Ron Paul wants the U.S. to start minding their own damn business. I think the world would be glad to see him in there, even if he did manage to get the U.S. to leave world organizations. Do you think that would last? Short-term, don't you think the world would be glad if we just butted out for a while? I get the impression they're sick to death of the U.S. anyway. As for foreign aid, if Darfur bothers you so much, join with others of like mind and organize as a private citizen. Far as I know, nobody's robbed you of the power to organize humanitarian aid or adopt refugees. Or are you saying you want to militarily intervene? Save lives and bring more peace at gunpoint? Why should we police the world? Do we own it?
It's not as if people are FORCED to look to the government to solve all the world's problems. It's only because we're such lazy babies that we keep expecting a parent government to make the world a better place when we could be making that happen ourselves by taking personal responsibility and initiative, working together... Anyone who seriously thinks politicians will fix all the world's problems, there's your Radical, there's your extremist viewpoint. The rest of us are reasonably cautious about handing over too much power to the government. Politicians create more messes than they clean up. They traditionally leave their messes for others to clean up. Then the new guy comes along and creates a distraction or changes the subject. Meanwhile, the mess is forgotten. Bill Clinton's administration might have lowered the debt but they did that, in part, by "borrowing" money from social security. Who's going to put that money back now? Hillary? Forget it. She's just coming back to finish the job, my guess. The Clintons brought us NAFTA and Hillary will lead us into a North American Union and full-out socialism. Forget That! Canadians want their national sovereignty and Americans want theirs too and if you like the U.S. capitalist system, live here. You like socialism, go to Canada if they'll have you. But blur the boundaries? Who's getting a say? You see how nobody came to the rescue of state's rights with the Warner Act. Now a president can declare marshal law and bypass the consent of the states. Ron Paul voted against that, by the way. And Ron Paul is against the North American Union.
Politicians are pulling all the strings and making bold moves without our say. And they're doing it in plain sight but Big Media's not covering it and so they help to legitimize these naked power plays. If you think it's not a feudal plutocracy already, you live in a charmed world.
Ron Paul is not afraid to draw attention to the obvious. Frankly, that will be a refreshing change from the usual political spin.
If enough voters disenfranchised by the two-party system get out and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, we could make a significant statement against Imperialism. If you're not stirred by the ethical implications of continuing a policy of preemptive warfare, at least recognize it's well past time to address the debt or lose the dollar. [ Reference Einstein on the symptoms of insanity... ]
The GOP primary will decide this race if it's not rigged.
Show comments (0)
November 07 2007 08:43 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or whatever and you're a patriot, you'll want to see this guy run against Hillary Clinton. I know I do. Guess who I'll be voting for?
Not just 'cuz I want to see someone in the head office who can swear the oath to protect the U.S. Constitution and mean it; someone who will stand by that oath, year after year; someone who's proven they can do it with their voting record. That's a good reason but that ain't the only reason.
I wanna see someone who will repair the damage done by this administration and restore our country's reputation and relationship with the rest of the world. Who will make that happen? Once upon a time, I'd have assumed the answer would be the default Democrat but if that's Hillary Clinton, sorry guys, not this time.
Most of all, I want to see someone end this God-forsaken war. Most everyone can see it's a pointless waste of lives and money. Those who can't see it, I don't know what to say to them except, prioritize. Who's gonna tip the scales? A pro-war Republican, an anti-war Republican, or a Pro-war Democrat?
Here's what I think: if Ron Paul wins the primary, you're going to see a whole new spin from the Republican machine. Suddenly this guy is going to be the "It" guy. You'd feel the love on Pluto. And Republicans in general will find out more about him, see more of him, and realize, he's a nice guy. Way nicer and more likable than Bush. And he's going to show them what's really been going on and better still, how it can be fixed. Liberals who want the war ended will vote for the anti-war candidate. Nobody third party will vote for Hillary Clinton. Those numbers add up.
Do I sound like a conservative? Not exactly. Ron Paul is an old-fashioned guy and we think differently about certain issues but setting that aside... Look at what his supporters accomplished on November 5th, raising so much in one day. He obviously has the ability to polarize the young, the old, pretty much everyone who's not for Hillary Clinton.
Look, y'all...do I have to vote for Hillary Clinton? Seriously? I really don't want to vote for Hillary but I suppose I will if that's my only option. (No, the other Republicans are not an option for me.)
Half this country didn't make this mess, but it's time to clean it up or get used to a longer-term change in lifestyle as the value of our money lessens and our homes and hourly wages mean acceleratingly less and less by the year.
I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary so I won't have to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general.
Spare us poor Democrats and lefties from having to vote for Hillary...save us from that fate by voting for Ron Paul in the primary. And spare yourself eight years more of the Clintons.
Consider who among the Republicans can realistically win this nation's vote. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, it will change this election. I really can't see many Democrats or independents switching parties and voting for Guiliani or Romney or whomever. Just not gonna happen. But a lot of Democrats and independents will vote for Ron Paul.
Watch this interview again and think about it.
Show comments (0)
October 14 2007 09:29 AM Cynthia Rosenberry
A timely reminder posted in a Knox News Sentinel Letter to the Editor:
Now is time to run for office
I saw a bumper sticker recently that read, "Enough is enough: don't re-elect anyone." I'm writing to remind everyone that it is impossible to vote someone out of office if he or she is running unopposed.
Now is the time to make sure every office has multiple candidates running for it. Nominating petitions are being circulated now, and the qualifying deadline is Dec. 13.
If you know a good potential candidate for a county office, encourage him or her to get papers and get on the ballot. Let's make sure voters have choices in 2008.
Judy Poulson, Knoxville
view source
Show comments (0)
July 30 2007 09:30 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
There is "[...]an ongoing Capitol Hill debate over whether to ban the use of electronic machines that lack paper trails. According to a recent New York Times report, sponsors of such an effort in the House of Representatives are hoping to pass a compromise version--requiring the paperless machines to be scrapped by 2012 instead of 2008--before Congress departs for its August recess at week's end. The Senate, however, appears to be moving more tentatively.
But the California findings suggest the paper trail requirement may not be a cure-all by itself: the testers, after all, were also able to manipulate the paper receipts produced by touch-screen machines in the Diebold and Hart machines. "
read full article:
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9752129-7.html
Scientists’ Tests Hack Into Electronic Voting Machines in California and Elsewhere
By CHRISTOPHER DREW, NY Times
Published: July 28, 2007
Computer scientists from California universities have hacked into three electronic voting systems used in California and elsewhere in the nation and found several ways in which vote totals could potentially be altered, according to reports released yesterday by the state.
The reports, the latest to raise questions about electronic voting machines, came to light on a day when House leaders announced in Washington that they had reached an agreement on measures to revamp voting systems and increase their security.
The House bill would require every state to use paper records that would let voters verify that their ballots had been correctly cast and that would be available for recounts.
The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, and the original sponsor of the bill, Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, said it would require hundreds of counties with paperless machines to install backup paper trails by the presidential election next year while giving most states until 2012 to upgrade their machines further.
Critics of the machines said that some of the measures would be just stopgaps and that the California reports showed that security problems needed to be addressed more urgently.
The California reports said the scientists, acting at the state’s request, had hacked into systems from three of the four largest companies in the business: Diebold Election Systems, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia Voting Systems.
Thousands of their machines in varying setups are in use.
The reports said the investigators had created situations for each system “in which these weaknesses could be exploited to affect the correct recording, reporting and tallying of votes.”
Voting experts said the review could prompt the California secretary of state, Debra Bowen, to ban the use of some of the machines in the 2008 elections unless extra security precautions were taken and the election results were closely audited.
Matthew A. Bishop, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, who led the team that tried to compromise the machines, said his group was surprised by how easy it was not only to pick the physical locks on the machines, but also to break through the software defenses meant to block intruders.
Professor Bishop said that all the machines had problems and that one of the biggest was that the manufacturers appeared to have added the security measures after the basic systems had been designed.
read full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28vote.html
The CA report (shows that eSlate was among those hacked):
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/red_overview.pdf
From Hart Intercivic:
"Election Deemed Successful In Tennessee Counties--
Voting Equipment Manufacturer Hart InterCivic Supplies Equipment To 31 Tennessee Counties, More Than Doubling Their Service Area
Hart InterCivic, in association with Harp Enterprises, who markets and supports the Hart Voting System throughout Tennessee, provides the eSlate® voting device to 31 Tennessee counties including Knox County with more than 240,000 registered voters. --published August 23, 2006
"
read full article:
http://www.hartic.com/pr_view.php?prid=56
They say the last election was a success but given that the systems have been hacked without detection or any evidence of tampering afterwards, how do we really know that the systems weren't actually hacked in 2006? Beause of the flaw in the designs, we don't.
Show comments (0)
July 20 2007 10:19 AM Cynthia Rosenberry
Please support:
H. R. 1416 - To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States and to repeal the prohibition on treaty obligations establishing grounds for certain claims.
and disband the military tribunals.
Also, please support H.Res. 333 to impeach Cheney. We need accountability in Washington. I'd love to see my representative to be the one Republican to stand up and say, "I've had enough. There is evidence of wrongdoing and I want answers. The American People deserve to know what really happened here."
also, if it's not asking too much in one email, could we PLEASE get out of the Middle East and start minding our own business? There's plenty at home to do and this debt y'all are amassing is frankly, ridiculous and beyond my comprehension.
(I sent a similar letter to Senators Corker and Alexander.)
Show comments (0)
June 28 2007 02:43 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
Sorry to say, Tennessee Folk is back in beta testing mode again. We transferred to a better host and this coincided with an influx of paying work. We'll fit Tennessee Folk in soon as we can. Errors appear to have sprung up associated with a conflict with our new host's software. Might take a few weeks to get around to hunting them all down. Works's booked up for a little while. Be patient with us, we're just glad to be paying the bills! :)
Show comments (0)
June 28 2007 02:24 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
Well, folks. It should come as no surprise that local alternative paper, the Grainger Today, recently announced that, due to rising gas costs, they’d no longer be giving the milk away for free. Starting next week, the price goes up from zero to .50. The Grainger County News is also .50.
Although their claim to be "Grainger County's FAVORITE newspaper" may be true, I’m sure it had a least a little something to do with the fact that their paper was FREE. If so, raising the price may hurt their readership for a while if many readers enjoyed the ease of picking up a free paper after paying higher prices locally for groceries and gas. Their readers ALSO have to pay the high gas prices as well. Personally, I have always found it an inconvenience to have to go to the store on Wednesday to pick up a copy of the Grainger Today or find them all gone by the next day (I have always suspected some folks are just using them as kindling in the winter). The very idea of driving around Grainger County looking for a copy (even if it contains an article or letter to the editor that I have written) is deterrent enough. I sometimes call ahead to the local IGA nearby my home but I’m sure the shopkeepers have much more important things to do than answer calls about the availability of a product which they don’t actually “sell”.
Personally, I’m glad it will be much easier to get a copy throughout the week if the price-increase will ensure that, even for a while. I don’t mind paying the extra couple quarters. We’ll gladly give up a candy bar to fit in the enormous expense. ;p
The best reason to read newspapers such as the Grainger Today and the Grainger County News over relying on papers outside the county, owned by media conglomerates such as Scripps Network (who, as an aside, gobbled up Knoxville’s free magazine the Metro Pulse), is their dogged focus on LOCAL news and that means you and me. I reckon big corporations looking at the bottom line are not going to foot the bill for that level of focus on less populated, hence, unprofitable regions unless they own one of the county’s papers (knock on wood). Well, I guess we can’t expect newspapers to act like a public service. They’re obviously in it to profit or they’d all be non-profits. They gotta eat. Gotta pay the bills, like everyone else. We don’t blame newspapers for operating like any thriving business would and make a living doing something we might occasionally consider a service to the public (although maybe not a “public service”). That said, the authors of this website offer a proposal to our local newspapers to help them hold their own, one that could work out for everyone concerned. Local Grainger County papers could hire THIS neighboring Grainger County business to create a database archive that would allow locals as well as Grainger County expatriates to pay the subscription rate and just log into a password protected area to read the entire paper online, while yet offering a handful of articles up front for “free”. Not only would this save everyone on gas but it would also support local business (namely our mutual interests).
Something else that may appeal to the locals (as well as the local papers if they have the articles online) is for someone to post a synopsis of highlights in both the local papers with links to get the full story. (DIGG.com does this right now and they’re extremely popular.) Access to the newspaper archives for a day could still cost .50 (because although they’re not paying for gas, they would still have to pay someone to post the articles online weekly.) PLUS, they’d be able to make extra money selling ads to their online site. After all, a great-looking and efficient archive to rival the likes of any Scripps-owned paper would surely encourage advertising sales coming in from outside the local area.
Our cost? For the Grainger Today and the Grainger County News (because we love our Grainger County neighbors), free advertising in both the newspaper and online for the lifetime of the website, plus noticeable credit for creating the site on the site itself.
Shoooot. ARE WE CRAZY OR WHAT?! (Don’t answer that.)
We’d love to hear from our local papers (i.e.neighbors) if they’d be interested in such a collaboration. Until then, like everyone else, we’ll probably pay out the .50 to read local news for as long as the little guys can hold off selling out to Scripps (knock on wood again).
Show comments (0)
April 10 2007 08:24 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
This documentary about genetically modified foods is now viewable //http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvLBMXC_D0Q online// at Google Video.
//www.thefutureoffood.com/ Buy the DVD>>//
Show comments (0)
April 01 2007 12:57 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
I object to nuclear waste transport to East Tennessee for treatment and/or temporary storage. Accidents happen and the risk is too great. I heard someone say at the hearing on this matter, "Only a fool thinks his device is foolproof." This is very true when it comes to nuclear power and waste containment. Contamination of karst terrain could have unknown consequences. I have have read a report by the state that contamination of a water supply in karst terrain such as is found in East Tennessee may be irrepairable. I agree with Representative Wamp that we want to get rid of nuclear waste, not ship more in. This proposal is completely unacceptable for our geological area.
I also object to the transport of nuclear waste for reprocessing because it may pass near my home and I don't think we should have to be exposed to the increase risk of terrorist attack en route. A lot of people live in East Tennessee. If you will choose a facility, I recommend choosing one in a less populated area.
For another thing, we have not solved our nuclear waste storage problem. Recycling waste may do some good, however, funneling money into nuclear power will increase the usage and therefore, the amount of waste produced. Bad idea. We're putting the cart before the horse. We must have a solution to storage before committing to increased usage and I've read statements that increase use of nuclear power is the intention of this program.
Lastly, this is a terrible waste of money. The government will have to subsidize this program. Frankly, I don't see the point except to prop up the nuclear power industry. Is that the government's job? If so, my business could use some money. Send subsidy to:Cynthia Rosenberry P.O. Box 290 Rutledge, TN 37861 (My mailbox is fairly large and may be able to fit a million dollars in large denominations, thanks.)
=====Additional information on GNEP may be found at http://www.gnep.energy.gov.
COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY APRIL 4TH, 2007.
=====Send a letter urging TN Senators to Oppose Funding For Reprocessing Nuclear Waste via Public Citizen:
http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=3524
Show comments (0)
March 19 2007 02:10 PM Cynthia Rosenberry
Insurance may be the biggest scam of our time yet our government mandates it. Who made that happen? How did we get to this point? The U.S. seriously needs to establish a separation of corporation and state, not citizen and state. The needs of the corporation often conflict with the needs of country/U.S. citizen, which is comprised of people, not PACs, bankrolls, and global corporations. Allowing corporations and the free market to determine the moral attitudes of our country is tantamount to leaving the country on auto-pilot. Who even knows where we are going? Do we have a "morality" that extends beyond the next election cycle?
Dennis Kucinich, a U.S. Representative and presidential candidate from Ohio, has a compassionate idea: expanding Medicare to cover all U.S. citizens, but will it find support? Will Kunicich even be allowed to discussed it in open debate before the next presidential election?
The question is, even if a majority of Americans say they want it, can they find a politician (no offense to Kucinich) who can get elected that will champion it? Getting one elected is the rub. Moneyed folk make the campaign contributions (as well as own the media) so moneyed folks determine what happens with our healthcare system. In my experience, sneering pundits are often allied with the moneyed ilk and I imagine they are insured to the teeth. Never was there an issue that so clearly pinpoints the chasm between the HAVEs and the HAVE-NOTs.
Noam Chomsky said regarding the 2004 U.S. elections:
"The New York Times commented that Kerry didn't make any hint about possible government involvement in health care programs because that position has, in their words, "no political support." Well, according to the most recent polls, 80% of the population thinks that the government ought to guarantee health care for everyone, and furthermore regard it as a moral obligation. That tells you something about people's values. But there's "no political support."
Why? Because the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, the financial institutions are opposed, the insurance industry is opposed, so there's "no political support." It doesn't matter if 80% of the population regard it as a moral obligation: That doesn't count as political support. It tells you something about the elite conception. You're supposed to vote for the image they're projecting. "
Wasn't it HCA Senator Frist that called single-payer health care "single prayer healthcare" or was that someone else? Some people will always be able to afford the best health care the U.S. has to offer and will always be eligible but others may find themselves on the outside of the system, looking in. Insiders criticize socialized health care saying it will lead to rationing of services and supplies. The fact is, health care is already rationed in the U.S. If you can afford it, you get it. If you can't, you will suffer and perhaps die for the lack of it just as you would in the poorest country in the world. It's not first-come-first-serve. The right to live in good health is a "privilege," not a given and it's a "right" bestowed by corporate policy, not government policy. So the corporations determine who lives and who dies in this country. In my opinion, they have TOO MUCH POWER. The irony is that suicide and assisting suicide is illegal but that's a purely archaic policy of the government. If it were up to the insurance companies, the law may be different, considering suicide is not their liability. Our government's attitude must be then, we expect that you will live, it's not our problem if you are not well. Every man for himself. Who writes policy about life and death? Policies regarding the death penalty, abortion, assisted suicide, these issues keep people voting along party lines. What would politicians do without the same old issues to keep us tuning in for the next election? The saga continues. Problems are seldom solved. Diseases are seldom cured.
Fans of our laissez-faire mercantile system as survival of the fittest often say fundamental need drives people to be self-sufficient and productive. While that may be the case in some instances, on the whole, I have to disagree. A lack of healthcare when needed will simply add to the burdens of working and unemployed Americans and will further impair their ability to catch up and compete. It's not enough just to safeguard the health of kids and elderly. The people supporting them are the working-aged worker class and a lot of them are uninsured. Lose an income provider and the family implodes. If guaranteeing that every member of the family will, at least, receive adequate medical care is "single prayer," according to the most powerful U.S. politicians, then perhaps praying for it will do more good than voting for it. Go ahead and pray the insurance companies will deem you or your spouse eligible for coverage, go ahead and pray to find a job with a good health care plan... Pray for your family but throw in a prayer for the rest? Pray that our government will stop policies in favor of preemptive violence and killing people abroad and will start expanding one of protecting, helping, and healing its own citizenry here at home.
Regarding Kucinich's plan for expanding medicare, however, considering the largest segment of our population is shifting into retirement, how this matter is handled will have everything to do with public perception of single-payer healthcare as a viable option (and we know who's in control of the spin). On a personal level, a large portion of our population may soon find out first-hand the consequence of a social-Darwinist attitude towards health care and the changing attitudes will impact family groups consisting of all ages. The baby-boomer shift may squelch any hopes for expanding Medicare when it becomes burdened with tending to the mass of Baby-boomers. Their middle aged offspring may find concensus regarding the need to tend to the needs of the elderly and children, however, may not find concensus regarding other population groups, preferring to cut their losses on those. The last thing the non-wealthy need is higher taxes, yet, slightly higher taxes will not ruin the majority of people. Sudden illness, however, can devestate the uninsured so the ethics and morality of pointing to the insurance industry as the necessary savior of our species are questionable.
Show comments (0)
|
|
|
Advertisements
|
