Newsquake

Overlooked: Navy's Fight To Use Sonar

Dakota Smith — 2008-07-03T00:42:00+00:00

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case of Winter v. NRDC, a case ostensibly about the Navy's use of sonar during military training exercises, but in reality about the extent of President Bush's power in influencing court decisions. Backstory: Earlier this year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a previous ruling, which declared that in order to protect marine life such as dolphins and whales, the Navy must limit its use of sonar and abide by a "12-nautical-mile no-sonar zone" along the southern California coast. Additionally, the court ordered the Navy to end sonar use if a marine animal was detected within a 2,200-yard radius. In its ruling, the 9th Circuit Court rejected a previous attempt by the Bush administration to exempt Navy sonar from environmental laws.

But now the administration has taken its case to the highest court in the land. The San Jose Mercury News offered a handy precis of the arguments: "Restricting the use of this sonar 'jeopardizes the Navy's ability to train sailors and Marines for wartime deployment during a time of ongoing hostilities,' Bush administration lawyers said in their appeal to the high court. But environmentalists... point to the dead whales that washed ashore in the Bahamas, the Canary Islands and Madeira Islands after the Navy conducted war games nearby. Some of them appeared to have died of hemorrhages in and around their ears, brains and lungs."

By the Navy's own estimate, 170,000 marine mammals have been affected by its sonar exercises over the last two years. The military branch still argues that the exercises are vital to training. But when the Supreme Court hears the case this fall, the justices will not weigh in on whether the dolphins and whales are being harmed. As the New York Times point outs, the court is really considering "the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts in resolving such issues. In an effort to sidestep the courts, the Bush administration invoked national security to exempt the Navy from strict adherence to the two federal environmental laws that underlay the court decisions."

And the extent of the administration's power is one of the reasons that Propeller user TechnologyExpert was interested in the story. "It's another 'national security" ploy by the Bush administration to get their way," he wrote in an email. "Humans don't really care about any other organisms on this planet.... In this case, the evidence is strong that sonar harms whales. Yet, the attitude of most humans is, so what?"

Meanwhile, how will the judges will? Lawyers for the Natural Resources Defense Council told the Los Angeles Times that they "were not surprised by the court's willingness to hear the Navy's appeal but said they remained confident of winning. Richard B. Kendall, a Los Angeles lawyer who represented the NRDC, pointed out that the justices had recently rejected a similar claim from the administration that the military's need to hold 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay trumps the detainees' right to go to court."

But Technology Expert is less optimistic. "I don't expect a good result: the Supreme Court is conservative. But what gives us the right to decide the life and death of entire species? Our brains? We don't seem to use them well."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Propeller Week In Review: June 27, 2008

James Marcus — 2008-06-27T14:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News

HATE MERCHANTS

Which story earned the most votes on Propeller during the last week? That would be "Hate Groups' Newest Target," with 268 votes and 632 comments. You would think that a story about the spike in white supremacist activity in the wake of Barack Obama's de-facto nomination would produce a fairly cut-and-dried comment thread. Who wants to defend the Klan? In fact, one member, salir, proposed a novel approach to the resurgence of such groups: "I say bring the troops home from Iraq and immediately deploy them into the forests and woods in the US where the paramilitary groups and Neo-Nazis hang out. Clean 'em out, put 'em away." But the thread soon detoured into a referendum on the candidate himself. "I live in a very unionized blue-collar town," said mrbs. "And the working man isn't voting against the black man because he's black... but because we are God-fearing ignorant gun-toting bigots." Replied cushi: "I don't believe Obama ever used the term 'ignorant' or implied it. At least, I never heard him say that. And I know that his words have been twisted into something they were never meant to be, because he is one of the most empathetic people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing." Nowalive, meanwhile, cursed the entire system: "Politics is now a full contact sport with no sense of sportsmanship. The loser of this 'superbowl' is always the American people no matter who the winner." Also worth noting: an exchange at the end of the comment thread, in which Klarissa suggested that the liberal contingent on Propeller derived most of its knowledge of current affairs from moveon.org pamphleteering. "Where do you get your news?" she asked. CRYMTYPHON listed a number of publications, then added: "I also get the weekly 'talking points' from Nancy Pelosi's secret broadcast in my fillings, but I assume everybody gets that."

CARLIN DEPARTS

"Comedian George Carlin dies in Los Angeles at 71" earned 251 votes and 91 comments. Tangent001 recalled some of the comedian's earlier triumphs, spilling the chronological beans along the way: "I remember when he was a regular on Tony Orlando and Dawn (okay, now I feel old), my sister and I would get so excited when his routine came on. I was fortunate enough to see him when he came through Denver this year. Got the t-shirt with 2,000 dirty words and phrases. Think I'll get it framed now." Said dadesider: "I have all his vinyl, from Hippy Dippy Weatherman to..." BronxBomber, heeding Propeller's PG-13 rating, said: "I have just 'seven' words as a personal dedication to yah George, but unfortunately, I can't use them here." Then there was Mutainia's expressions of sorrow: "I haven't felt so sick over the death of a comedian since blasphemous Sam Kinison died in that accident between LA and Vegas. May God be merciful." Another member, zohar10, speculated that the show might go on after all : "He was an atheist, as far as I know, so now that he's probably met his maker and existing somewhere in some other dimension, he's probably busy whipping up some fresh new Carlinesque material. It's too bad we won't ever get to hear it straight from the man. Any mediums in the room?"

JUST SAY NO?

"States Reject Bush's Abstinence-Only Funding" rang up 146 votes and 315 comments. AtheismIsReality said no to the very idea of abstinence-only programs: "Telling kids to simply not have sex is just like telling them to simply not speed. We know that some are going to speed, so do we refuse to teach driving skills that will help minimize them having an accident if they happen to speed?" For tanglang, the very idea of schools teaching sex ed was alarming: "Right now our schools are graduating morons. They are failing at teaching the basics, so why the hell do you think they should teach your kids about sex?" But TheNewsseeker argued that sweeping sex under the rug was an even more perilous course for schools to take: "Suppressed sexuality, burdened with the idea of sin, is much more dangerous than the natural discovery of the other sex, whenever it is the right time.... It is very necessary to talk about the dangers of an early pregnancy at school." The mere mention of sin set off another polemical mudfight. "Kids need to learn about ethics, not morality," argued david nwpa. "They can learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age without introducing the concept of 'sin,' which brings with it a goodly amount of guilt." DropkickaLib made a pitch on behalf of that much maligned emotion: "There's nothing wrong with feeling guilty when you've done something wrong. It's called a conscience." Replied dunkirk: "Yeah, let's turn out droves of maladjusted people, especially when the hormones say yes yes and they suddenly have this dilemma of a natural urge being called a sin." But it was wtagg who suggested that the federal government get out of the business altogether: "Let it be dealt with at a local level. If a local community wants to abstain, great. If they want to hand out condoms, great. Let them decide how they want to tackle their problem."

AND DON'T OVERLOOK....

Can a single week go by without a spate of hotly debated Obama stories on Propeller? Perhaps--but folks, this ain't it. "Barack Obama Vows to Disarm America" accumulated more comments than any other post this week: 746. Should military spending be reined in? "I know the billionaires who feed off the military complex would be very sad if we stopped," opined jordan11. Said slate: "Yeah, I bet [Dianne] Feinstein's hubby will be very upset." According to scott4261, this jab at the California senator and her arms-procuring husband was fully merited: "Dianne Feinstein has been a sock puppet for the military industrial complex because of it. She's a DINO of the worst kind, and an example of the kind of Democrat that should be voted out of office." Meanwhile, CorbinDallas argued that our current high-tech arsenal was more than adequate to defend our interests, and that any danger stemmed from our strategic missteps: "What our military isn't good for, and isn't supposed to be used for, and is doomed to fail miserably at, no matter what the state of technology may be, is engaging in guerrilla warfare and police actions on foreign soil, against the indigenous population." But memestryker remained skeptical about Obama's plan to cut defense spending: "Criminals will always be armed. Disarmed countries like Congo are suffering horribly at the hands of armed thugs. So I disagree with Obama concerning several disarmament issues." A related post, "Gored: Obama could win vote, lose election," rang up 174 votes and 490 comments, including this pessimistic assessment from markmawn2 of the offshore drilling proposals now in front of the Congress: "It will take 5 years to produce anything in reality. If it is sweet crude, it will be sold abroad. By then, oil will be $200 and the price could only make a $2.00 max dent per barrel. You all are suckers if you believe otherwise." And then there was "Overlooked: Obama's Anti-Smear Site," with 133 votes and 305 comments. Said UnusualSuspect: "Obama's going to need this site, because I can see more swift-boating groups on the horizon than we ever thought possible, slinging all kinds of mud and garbage." Replied abntv: "Obama has some serious image problems [and] this is just another way of dealing with them." Elsewhere, the Propeller community sounded off on wolves, war, and detainee rights. And finally, there was "Lottery Winner Pulls Off 'Get Poor Quick' Scheme," which racked up 166 votes and 18 comments. Remarked cowboygrandpa: "Darn. I was hoping to get him to invest in my anti-gravity belt. It would have went well with his trampoline house." To which Uncle Dave replied: "He stole the trampoline house idea from me! I'm suing!" Good luck--these guys may have beat you to it.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Overlooked: Paparazzi Vs. Malibu Surfers

Dakota Smith — 2008-06-26T00:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Arts and Entertainment

Last weekend in Malibu, a group of paparazzi descended on the beach to take photos of actor Matthew McConaughy, who was surfing nearby. Their presence on the beach wouldn't have been notable--"paps," as these photographers and videographers are called, can be spotted most days in Malibu. But on this particular day, the group was confronted by a group of local surfers. Verbal sparring ensued as the surfers insisted on protecting both their beach and McConaughy. "Get off our beach," they told the paps. "Get a real job." Before long the incident escalated into violence. On video, the surfers can be see kicking one pap and throwing his camera into the water.

It's unclear who actually instigated the violence; the video would seem to implicate the local surfers, but the Malibu Surfside reports that the paps were the aggressors, and that one of the photographers pulled a knife on the men. Regardless, the incident, which was quickly picked up by the media, highlighted the ongoing problem of paparazzi in Malibu. And many Angelenos quickly took the side of the locals. "The general sentiment around here is that any time a paparazzo gets his camera smashed or gets popped in the face or gets dunked in the water, we're all for it," Brian Pietro, owner of Malibu General Store, told the Los Angeles Times.

Gossip scribe Joanne Molloy, who writes the Rush & Molloy column for the Daily News, says there's been an escalation in incidents involving citizens harassing the paps. "It used to be that celebrities like Chris Martin or Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin had to fight off the paparazzi themselves," Molloy writes in an email to Propeller. "But we've seen an increase in incidents like the one, with surfers in Malibu or clubgoers in New York who take the side of a star who's just trying to chillax."

As Molloy points out in yesterday's Daily News, the beach fight quickly spread online following last weekend's incident. Thousands of comments were left on the website of the X17 agency, which sells photos to magazines, and paps were quick to respond to the disparaging comments. "I'm a pap," writes one commenter. "I've made $94K a year and I'm only four months into it... because stupid white trash people like your fat mother buy the magazines. We hunt the very people you worship for no reason."

Also lost in the debate---and the media coverage--was an another response. Why attack the photographers when the real villains are the magazines editors and publishers who pay for the photos? A moot point, says Rebecca Fox, managing editor of media web site Mediabistro.com. "It's parallel to the meat industry," she tells Propeller. "People elect not to think about how they get their information." She adds: "I think people want their celebrity stuff however they can get it."

At least one photographer has filed charges, according to reports, while Malibu Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich and L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca announced that following last weekend's incident, a task force will consider whether paparazzi should be required to have special licenses. The task force will also "address what Ulich termed 'a new breed of paparazzi'," who "travel in packs, run red lights, make unsafe . . . U-turns in pursuit of their subject,' according to the Los Angeles Times.

Police also will be heading to the same Malibu beach this weekend. According to comments left on the X17 website, the two sides are planning to have a huge rumble on the beach either on Saturday or Sunday. "The common theme seems to be that one of the weekend days, the two sides are going to come together," one police captain told the Times.

Meanwhile, for all the fuss on the web, the submitted story got few votes here at Propeller. But it was a story that was noticed by locals--and by Propeller Scout Deirdre Woolard, who lives in Los Angeles. "I think that surfers always feel some ownership of the beaches that they frequent and so there is some ego there," she wrote in an email. "Also, it is at the core a sport which requires concentration and the proper environment. If the paparazzi were swarming a golf course (which they have started doing too), you'd hear about angry golfers whacking at cameras with five irons."

Deirdre also believes that paparazzi are indeed getting more aggressive, and using new tactics--like just staking out a spot and waiting for celebrities. "The groups have gotten bigger and bigger and can represent a danger to the community. I think keeping paparazzi off the beach is a good idea."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Propeller Week In Review: June 20, 2008

James Marcus — 2008-06-20T12:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News

RUSSERT IS GONE

"Tim Russert Dies of Heart Attack at NBC" got the most votes of any story this week: 229. It also prompted an outpouring of sadness and sympathy in the comment thread, which indicated Russert's extraordinary status as a talking head. "Election night will not be the same," said TimALoftis. Replied ZiegfeldGirl: "I'm sorry he didn't get to see how this one turned out, he was so looking forward to it." Another member, spkguy, suggested that Russert would in fact be observing the returns from a celestial moderator's chair: "He will still get to see, it although from a higher perspective. A consummate professional and a real gentleman, he will be greatly missed by many!" For jimdoze, Russert's death was a kind of memento mori for us all: "His abrupt parting is a sad and frightening reminder that the measure of our hour upon the stage eludes contemplation and is beyond our control." And Bkumm imagined a heavenly conclave of the broadcasting greats: "Rest in peace, Tim. I know that if there is anything after this, then you and Edward R. Murrow and Peter Jennings are having a heck of a time right now." Most striking were the numerous expressions of personal sorrow, as if Russert had been a member of the family. "I was outside when I heard," recounted lvrofwolves. "My son came home from work almost in tears [and] said, 'I just heard on the radio that Tim Russert died....' Wow! It was a shock."

HOOP DREAMS

On a more cheerful note (for at least half the audience), there was "Celtics clinch 17th title in blowout fashion," with 168 votes and 35 comments. DeadXXXManXXXTalkin was in a festive mood: "Now all those people who were comparing Kobe to Jordan will finally shut up. The Celtics wanted it more and they took it. Better balance, better team." KicBoxStallion agreed: "Yep, way better team, and they proved it with a stomping triumphant blowout right back on home turf, Beantown! Sweet!" So did CaptainLucid, although for different reasons: "I am glad that Boston won, not because I like Boston but [because] I hate the Lakers above all." There was also a mini-dispute about the perennial Bryant-Jordan comparisons. "Kobe can only do so much, just like Jordan," argued newbie0420. "The difference in this series was Kobe's supporting cast, [who] played like garbage." But tanglang dismissed the whole argument: "Jordan could not live up to the hype of being the next Jordan. (Wizards) So what makes anyone think that someone else can?" Let's leave the last word to enginebin: "Celtics rule."

REGARDING DUBYA

As his second term winds down, George W. Bush is still capable of igniting some lively debate here at Propeller. "President Bush: An Appreciation," with 162 votes and 571 comments, was an excellent example of the president's polarizing powers. Klarissa was quick to thank AlphaGnosis, who posted the story: "AG, so nice to hear something positive for a change." Justice4All jumped in with a dissent: "He's ruined the economy. He's done far more damage to the country than al-Quaida could ever have done." He was joined by hdthehn: "The earth hasn't been struck by asteroids, meteors, or comets, so under your premise, George W. Bush has done a great job of protecting us from the cosmic boogie men, too." Then the thread swerved into a discussion of the president's conduct on 9/11. Said lfergie812: "If I were president and my country was being attacked on 9/11, I would have gotten off my posterior and left the school immediately." AlphaGnosis defended POTUS: "He didn't want to alarm the children. And I'm sure he was just as shocked as you and I were." So did Nonnie22: "It's not like he hung out there, read two or three more books with those kids, got a pedicure, and moseyed on over to A.F. One and took a nap." A less complimentary assessment, "100 years to recover from Bush," bagged 186 votes and 415 comments. Locky12 questioned the whole point of the post, an interview with crusty contrarian Gore Vidal: "Since when was Gore Vidal worth reading/listening to?" Replied BLO2L: "Everybody is worth listening to." And KazamaSmokers sounded a stubbornly partisan note: "One party is more a slave to corporate interests (as opposed to populist interests) than the other. If you fail to recognize that, you've got the Kool-Aid in your veins." And let's complete the trifecta with "W. Regrets Almost Nothing," which earned 158 votes and 273 comments. One member, gbilly08, cut straight to the chase: "W is a moron." Another, gamahuche, filed a dispatch from the Old World: "The blazing hostility toward W. has faded to indifference and a sort of fatigued perplexity about how les imbeciles de regime cowboy got into office, and how America could have put the world through all this craziness." But slate insisted on putting things in perspective: "Other than maybe Nixon, which president has ever said he regretted what he did in office: Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Ford, or Kennedy? Kennedy almost blew up the planet with his knuckleheaded handling of Russia, for God's sake, and you worship him."

AND DON'T OVERLOOK....

"Supreme Court Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Federal Courts" rang up 216 votes and 416 comments. Several members responded to Justice Antonin Scalia's widely reported assertion that the decision would "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Said Beau7890: "I'm AMAZED that he believes that giving a few people the right of judicial review will result in more American deaths. Too bad he couldn't spell out the logical process behind that--it almost reminds me of the way some folks on Propeller argue." Endoscopy advocated a non-judicial approach to oppose the court's decision: "If the courts are going to give civil rights to enemy combatants, we may as well just kill them. In a firefight anything can happen." Meanwhile, Teagen threw down the gauntlet to the legislative branch: "If Congress really wanted to do something this year, besides the non-binding resolutions, tax increases, and cutting the military, how about drawing up laws concerning terrorists? Carter gave non-uniformed combatants (at that time, the PLO) more protection than regular military troops have. Dump the UN bylaws and create something we all can live with." Elsewhere, the Propeller community sounded off about Al Gore, oil prices, and plastic surgery. A story about offshore drilling generated 144 votes and 248 comments, including this bit of electoral algebra from antibrainwasher: "Big Oil=John McCain=Cheney/Bush 4 more years." (Replied FSU92grad: "Leave it to an angry liberal to pee on everyone's parade.") And finally, there was "Theory Of Gravity Found To Be Wrong," with 155 votes and 113 comments. "First I find out that Pluto isn't a planet, now the Earth's center isn't dragon's blood!" lamented ind06. "Was anything they taught me in school correct?" Responded Mdiar: "Well... what did they teach you in Sex Ed?" Later in the thread, it appeared that BronxBomber and Beeboppin71 were heading straight for some kind of consummation--and that's where we'll draw the curtain, folks.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Overlooked: Obama Launches "Fight The Smears" Site

Dakota Smith — 2008-06-17T22:33:00+00:00

The modern age calls for modern political tools. Last week, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign launched a new website solely dedicated to debunking untruths about his life. Called Fight The Smears, the site is laid out in a clean, simple style: it lists each rumor, then neatly debunks it. Example:

LIE: Barack Obama won't put his hand over this heart during the Pledge of Allegiance

TRUTH: View video of Barack leading The Pledge of Allegiance in the United States Senate

Here's the video of Obama communications director Robert Gibbs talking about the site:

Granted, addressing rumors is nothing new for the Obama camp. Previously, the campaign has used a different site, Fact Check Obama, to counteract untruths. But this new site is far more aggressive than its predecessor. And according to some news outlets, this is exactly not the tactic to take. According to Salon, conventional wisdom states that the best way to counteract a negative, rumor-filled attack is to ignore it. The Salon piece also takes the layout of the new site to task. Listing the smear first, says one expert, is a dicey tactic, "which often causes people to later misremember the lie as true."

Not so, says Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain, speaking on Good Morning America. "That is one of the biggest fallacies in politics--that if you respond to an attack, you are somehow dignifying it," he argued. "The reality is that if you don't respond to an attack, what you're allowing the other side to do is to shape the associations people have to your candidate. If you don't offer any counter-association, they come to believe those things. And those things will stick."

While Monicachenoa never got back to NewsQuake on what interested her about the story, look what was submitted to the site last night by IslandDog: "More Obama Lies: He was A Muslim." Now that Obama's site is up and running--and has debunked this very assertion--is this a case of ignorance or deliberate rumor-mongering?

Story: Obama site to debunk rumors
User: Monicachenoa

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Propeller Week In Review: June 13, 2008

James Marcus — 2008-06-13T17:36:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News

IMPEACHMENT FAILS

It's not often that a single article earns the most votes and the most comments in any given week. But this time around, that honor went to "Kucinich presents Bush impeachment articles," with 276 votes and 735 comments. The debate was, to say the least, spirited. JoseMadre predicted from the start that the Democratic majority would bury the impeachment: "Pelosi wants no part of it, because then she and Kerry and a lot of other Democrats would be exposed for their part in the war lead-up." Replied mesodude: "When Democrats and Republicans agreed to allow Bush to disarm Iraq, they didn't agree to anything like what this horrific three-hour tour has morphed into over the course of 5 years.... No way, Jose." Teech took it one step further, praising Kucinich and comparing him to Abraham Lincoln: "A renegade? No. A clear thinker? Seems to be. Hears the music of the Democrats, but marches to his own drum." Meanwhile, slate called for a nonpartisan sweep of the broom: "While you're at it, Denny, remember to finish off the guy with frozen money and Feinstein for lining her pockets with military money. Oh yeah, I'd also love for you to look into the carbon credit company that will rake in billions of dollars of payola." And while several members immediately labeled George W. Bush the worst president in U.S. history, there was a demurral from Mdiar: "I still support Buchanan for that title." A follow-up story, "House waves off impeachment measure against Bush," bagged 179 votes and 307 comments. Said libsRfunny: "To paraphrase a famous line from the Ali-Frazier fight: Down goes Kucinich!" There was a different reaction from unome2: "It astonishes me that the liberal media wasn't the least bit interested in this impeachment, concerning lies, murder, and the loss of our Constitution." Only Beau7890 seemed somewhat satisfied with the outcome: "We all knew the impeachment resolution wasn't going to go anywhere. I'm still glad it was introduced and read into the public record."

HIS BETTER HALF

Another hot-button story, "Michelle Obama's problem with 'Whitey'," rang up 174 votes and 644 comments. The tape, of course, has yet to be produced--even Republican spitfire Michelle Malkin seemed a little wary--and UnusualSuspect took a similar approach: "Just show me the tape. No judgment can be made at all until the tape is available and seen." Replied aniokly: "The tape will come out before the convention. You can bet your last tax dollar. They sold many copies before they shut down that part of their website in March." And in the blink of an eye, the conversation swerved over to John McCain's use of the word gook to describe his North Vietnamese captors. Was some equivalency being proposed? For abntv, McCain was merely conforming to custom: "If you are going to call everyone in the U.S. military that used the word "gook" [a racist], nobody that ever served in that war would be qualified to run for any office, including myself." Another member, nightschase, felt differently: "Being an Asian, I must say your comment is very disturbing for a couple of reason[s]. Just because a number of people have called Asians gooks in the past makes it in no shape or form okay at all to excuse such blatant racism." When the conversation drifted back over to the original topic, Candida dismissed Michelle Obama's comment as a minor faux-pas (assuming she actually made it): "There is absolutely no comparison between calling people 'whitey' and calling them 'N.' The emotional baggage simply isn't there. It's like calling someone filthy rich." Another story, "Michelle Obama Rumor Stolen from Novel?," earned 127 votes and 464 comments. "Figures," mused APixieInDixie. But it was mackiemesser who urged us, once again, to keep our powder dry and await further developments: "Well, I'll give this issue the benefit of a doubt and wait for the video to surface. I'm quite patient, as I've been waiting for a World Series win for a Washington DC baseball team for over 50 years now."

NORTH TO ALASKA

As gas prices continue to skyrocket, it's no surprise that "Alaska drilling needs to happen" got the community talking. FSU92grad was all for opening up ANWR as quickly as possible: "My family and yours come first, and most people in here know that they can safely drill and get this badly needed oil without leaving much of a footprint." For emandand99, that was only the first step: "Obviously, we know how to use oil, gas, coal and nuclear. We need to exploit those while we heavily research wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, etc." Endoscopy pointed to earlier, failed efforts in the same area: "Carter had the government spend a ton of money on that. NASA headed up the scientific research on it. They put up a bunch of experimental wind turbines and other forms of generating electricity. All cost prohibitive." Replied zaphod: "Well, when gas gets to $10.00 a gallon maybe it will become cost effective." BB64 backed up Endoscopy's argument: "I sell components to GE Wind and then the replacement parts. It's a huge cash cow that wouldn't be possible without huge government handouts." But RickyDawkins was still rather skeptical about the benefits of Alaskan drilling: "There is no real need to drill in ANWR. The Bushites and their Big Oil pals know this, but are merely trying to exploit consumer frustration at the pump to ruin yet another wildlife area for the sake of short-term oil company profits." A related story, "Oil Prices Average Sets New Record," bagged 189 votes, 66 comments, and this indignant assessment from RichFatCat: "Shortage? Storage tanks are at full capacity! Like it or not, rampant speculation on oil as a commodity and as a hedge against a plunging dollar is mostly the cause. Billions and billions are made every day and one doesn't even have to get one's hands dirty." And then there was "Republicans block extra taxes on oil companies," with 151 votes and 254 comments. Again, there was room for plenty of disagreement. "Drill!" said Locky. "Let's drill in the Dakotas, off the California shelf, in Alaska." To which Bopi365 replied: "That's right, consume, spend, drill, consume, spend some more. I've got a full-size pickup that needs fillin'."

AND DON'T OVERLOOK....

"1.4 Million Bankruptcy Claims expected in 2008" sparked some lively debate. "This has been coming for years," said cowboygrandpa. "Reaganomics has caught up to us." Added reviewer: "The statistic is made worse when you consider that bankruptcy law is more strict now than during other troubling times of the late 70s and early 80s." But DPittman made a pitch for personal responsibility: "Wonder how many of those people that lost their jobs and can't pay their bills manage to find the money to pay for cell phones, IPods, Playstations, cigarettes, and beer. This has nothing to do with Bush or Congress--it has to do with people making bad decision and then looking for someone to bail them out." There were high-profile stories about stress, Hooters, and the impending Propeller redesign. And finally, there was "Go And Tidy Your Room, Say Scientists," posted by that maestro of mirth ind06. "Tidy-up fairies are a finicky bunch," noted chevydog. "They have to be wanted before they appear and do their stuff." But truthiness thought the whole neatness thing was overblown: "What's wrong with wearing the same pants all week?" Or all year, for that matter?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Overlooked: Gay Marriage in California

Dakota Smith — 2008-06-09T01:04:00+00:00

Story submission: Wedding Plans Underway In Calif. As Foes Rally Offensive
User: David-NWA

California saw two big events this week: First, opponents of California Supreme Court's May ruling (which granted gays the right to get married) gathered enough signatures to put an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot. Secondly, the Supreme Court stayed its decision to allow gay marriages to go forward beginning June 16th. California has been through this vote before: In 2000 voters adopted Proposition 22--with 61.4% in favor of the measure--that banned gay marriage. But in this case the legal twist is that the ban on gay marriage could come five months after couples are legally married in the state. To find out how gay groups are feeling about this latest round of events, Propeller followed up with Rachel Dowd, executive editor of The Advocate.

What is the mood, or general mood among your readers in terms of this being on the ballot?

The mood is cautious optimism. Even the fact that the Supreme Court decided to stay their decision and allow gay marriages to go forward on June 17th was a great symbol that we are moving forward.

But at the same time, the amount of money needed to beat this ballot initiative will be between $10 million and $20 million. That's an enormous amount of money for pro gay groups to raise. It will be the most ever they have raised and so it's an enormous task ahead. But it feels like winds have changed.

What will the money be spent on?

Media outreach, mostly. The main group [who helped put the initiative on the ballot] is the National Coalition for Marriage in California. They spent $8 million to get it on the ballot and they have plans to spend $15 million more.

Where do current polls show in terms of how the vote could swing?

A recent Los Angeles Times poll taken at the end of May showed that 51 percent of voters approved of same sex marriages. It's a dead heat. But that in and of itself is progress since Prop. 22 saw 61 percent of voters disapproving... so we are making progress.

One thing that is new now is that when Massachusetts passed their initiative, they got a $102 million boost to their economy in the first 18 months because of gay weddings [wedding and the related business, i.e., catering, florists, etc]. Now, you have to be a resident to Massachusetts to marry, you can't just drive there and get marry, but California won't have the resident clause. And it's estimated that it'll give a $375 million boost to our economy.

What happens to those marriages that happen before November if voters approve the amendment to ban gay marriage?

This has never happened before so there are issues.. but you can't take away something that was legal.

What kinds of implications will the November vote have for the rest of the country?

The California Supreme is the most-cited court in the country, it is used more often in arguments than in any other state. It's the most important Supreme Court in the country. There are other states, like Connecticut, that are close [to approving gay marriage] and looking to California right now.

With both candidates saying they are opposed to gay marriage, will this have any impact on the presidential race?

With the number of young voters who now plan to got to the polls [because of Obama] and vote this November, it's in our favor....Even though, he respects the right to choose, he has inspired younger voters.

Propeller also caught up with user David NWPA to find out what interesting him about the story. Here's what he wrote back: "I was most interested by the fact that some people in California (and elsewhere) are vehemently opposed to marriage equality and will stop at nothing to embolden their supporters. The reasoning behind why gay marriage is so offensive to some rests solely with religious beliefs and mythical ideas about marriage. That it is a heterosexual institution and has traditionally been so is sufficient reason to keep gays and lesbians from marrying. However, if one uses that logic, neither women, nor blacks could vote. They could not wed one another, and we would have slaves picking cotton in the south. Traditions can and rightly should change. Those who oppose gay marriage, like the ones mentioned in the article, fail to understand that position. Those ideas I found to be most compelling."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Taking the new Propeller for a spin

Tom Drapeau — 2008-06-06T12:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News

For the last few months, the Propeller team has been hard at work on a major upgrade to our social news experience. As we near our community's two-year anniversary, I am pleased to announce that this work will soon be complete. We have a lot of exciting news to share! But first, I want to thank all of the great users who have helped our service to mature. We have learned a lot from you, and continue to appreciate your input and enthusiasm.

Now, back to the new site. In the coming weeks, we will post details about the new Propeller, along with screenshots of particular features. We want the new site to be easier, faster, and more fun to use. To accomplish these goals, we have completely rewritten the entire Propeller website and platform.

The first thing you will notice is our new look, complete with a mascot we call the Propeller Professor. With his fashionable beanie and goatee, this character's job is to aid navigation and participation by pointing out all of our new help resources. We also have a new logo and an entirely new user interface. All of this should make Propeller much easier to use, whether you're a longtime user or a curious newbie.

The geek in all of us will be happy to learn that our developers have changed the algorithm that calculates the ranking of each story on the site, making it smarter and more robust. Additionally, vast improvements to moderation tools will allow for swifter response times to user reports. Throw in an enhanced archival system and plenty of performance tweaks and you have a whole new experience for the community.

We wouldn't do all of this if we couldn't also make Propeller more fun. We're adding new features, such as the ability to form groups with like-minded users. We want conversations and friendships to flourish-if you're so inclined, create a group and have at it! We will also recommend stories and groups we think you might like. After all, why should you have to scroll through the whole site when we can bring the information right to your (figurative) doorstep? We will also phase in an awards system, which will recognize our most ardent users for their participation. If these features make Propeller more fun for you, then we've accomplished our goal.

As if that that weren't enough, the new platform also allows for a more seamless integration with AOL. With the new release, you'll be able to use your AOL Screen Name to establish a Propeller account, and to participate in Propeller content directly from sites like AOL News and FanHouse. Find a great story? Post it to Propeller--and it could end up on the AOL.com homepage! That's right, in addition to Propeller, your story could be viewed by millions of AOL consumers who don't yet visit our own site on a daily basis.

We are very excited to launch this new experience. It is an upgrade we are extremely proud of, and we really hope you like it! Stay tuned for more details, and as always, let us know what you think.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Propeller Week In Review: June 5, 2008

James Marcus — 2008-06-05T14:37:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News

VICTORY LAP

Barack Obama was unmistakably back in the center ring this week at Propeller. First, there was "Barack Obama Resigns from Trinity United Church," with 116 votes and 625 comments. "It's about time!" said ADAGUY. "Yes and no," replied Candida. "I feel really sorry for him having been forced into taking this step... [A]fter having listened to more than a few soundbites of Rev. Wright's sermons, I've come to the conclusion that he is definitely not the racist devil the right tries to portray him as." But lvrofwolves took a more skeptical approach to Obama's decision: "I can't read his mind and I don't know his true intentions, but he is a politician, and based on that I will always question his motives." On a more triumphant note, there was "CNN projects Obama clinches nomination," which rang up the most votes of any story this week: 244. Leemck02 gave the news a measured thumbs up: "I hope we don't have people [who] will cut off their noses to spite their face. Obama did win with very little negative campaigning. If we can keep the nation's health in focus, we will be okay." Blackacereturn was more jubilant: "As an African American, I would be remiss if I didn't say thanks to all Americans for making what I thought impossible a reality. When this all started, I said that whites [would] never vote for a black man. There is no one happier today to be so wrong about this feelings." To which Dionys had an interesting comeback: "He's not a black man. He's a black man and a white man. Half of each, last time I checked. I, too, think it's wonderful that some Americans (at least half, I would hope) are blind to race when it comes to choosing someone on their merits." Another story about the candidate's troubled relationship with Trinity Church, this one by way of Rush Limbaugh, rang up 160 votes and 365 comments. (There were a good many denunciations of Limbaugh himself, but at least one Propeller member, NemoShiZniT, cautioned against throwing out the baby with the bathwater: "Even your worst enemy is correct sometimes. Never say never, right?") And finally, "Obama Staffer's Lobbying Work Runs Counter to Candidate's Guidelines" produced 125 votes, 216 comments, and this loop-the-loop from Stephen Johnson, who relished the attack on Obama but regretted that it had been posted by one of Propeller's in-house liberals: "Geez, the WaPo actually writing a negative story about the Obama campaign? I must be dreaming.... This deserves a vote, but I can't bring myself to do that for an Aidenag post."

THE LONG WAR

"Al-Qaida on ropes: Bin Laden is losing" produced 201 votes and 433 comments. As libsRfunny saw it, Bin Laden's plunging poll numbers were pure poison for the Democrats: "This is abhorrent news for the retreat-and-surrender caucus that only a year ago said we were losing not only in Iraq but the war on terror as well." MRCOFFEECAKE found the reliance on Middle Eastern polling a little dodgy: "So Bush ignores American polls about him, but wants you to step in line to declare victory over Damascus and Tehran polls about Bin Laden? I'm sure they were properly monitored!" Meanwhile, pc25 wondered whether the sheik had more serious problems than a wilting approval rating: "According to some reports, Bin Ladin is not only losing, Bin Ladin is dead." But ETproductions pointed to the string of videos Bin Laden has released over the past six years: "Granted, he looks like he's been using Grecian Formula 44 on his beard, but this is very common in the Islamic world. A full dark beard shows vitality, apparently even if it is color by Clairol." (In the accompanying photo, Clairol appears to have let him down.) A related story, "Bush vs. Terror: Something's Working," earned 80 votes and 169 comments. Should we take the battle to where the terrorists are? Said Bobo in Texas: "For the last several years, that has been Iraq, and there are a whole lot less of them alive now." Replied rimbaud: "There's a new one born every minute, who will not mind losing his life to the cause of nutcases like al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden. We have turned those two clowns into heroes, instead of prisoners."

MAC IS BACK

With the Democratic primaries finally wrapped up, John McCain began to focus his firepower on his ultimate competitor. "McCain Speech Tonight: The General Election Begins" generated 193 votes and 446 comments. TemplarScribe considered the Arizona senator's speech something of a sideshow: "Shame all the national press will be in St. Paul, and all the pundits discussing the history-making event of the nomination of an African American for president, instead of the least-favorite conservative trying to dance the tightrope between Bush loyalist and theoretical agent of change." But ranchhand wondered whether Obama might actually appreciate a rival attraction: "Maybe Obama will be grateful that he will have another distraction.... That way, if he sticks his foot in his mouth, it won't be reported on too much tonight." Replied mesodude: "So after 8 years of listening to Bush shredding grammar and the English language beyond all recognition, cons suddenly want a President who can competently speak 'extemporaneously'?" Meanwhile, "McCain Challenge Letter To Obama: Ten Joint Townhalls" produced 142 votes and 296 comments. MichaelRhodente was eager for the candidates to mix it up: "McCain [will] mop the floor with the rookie socialist that Obama is." CaptainLucid felt otherwise: "Five months from now, I will be laughing my ass off at comments like yours. What do Kennedy/Nixon, Clinton/Daddy Bush, Clinton/Dole and Obama/McCain have in common? A young, vibrant orator versus an anal-retentive Republican." Not so, said saintetienne, who saw a McCain TKO in the making: "This obviously sounds like a man who is confident, relaxed, experienced, is intelligent, has integrity, has solutions that he's ready to implement and, most importantly, has been ready and able to assume the White House for quite some time now."

AND DON'T OVERLOOK....

Most members seemed unsure as to whether "Evidence of Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden," with 164 votes and 143 comments, was a spoof or not. In any case, the conversation had a certain slaphappy charm to it. "They found my dinosaurs that I hid in the Garden of Eden?" said MereMortal. "Damn! I guess I need to build a better fence, and get that flaming sword fixed." Charlson had a more irate response: "What claptrap pseudo-science crap is this? Wow, I can't wait to find out how Pat Robertson can lift 2,000 lbs." Propeller members sounded off about fuel, food prices, and floating airports. And finally, there were some fond farewells to Harvey "That's Hedley!" Korman, who died at the age of 81. Said Alexia: "This man made me laugh for years." Replied rushran: "God rest your soul. Heaven is a funnier place now." And that, folks, will be enough swirling rivulets of thought for one week.

Oh, and don't forget this:

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Propeller Week In Review: May 30, 2008

James Marcus — 2008-05-30T16:36:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News

DIRTY LINEN

The publication of Scott McClellan's Bush-whacking memoir created a real stir this week at Propeller. "McClellan Whacks Bush, White House" nabbed 184 votes and 447 comments, including this vote of no confidence from Locky12: "I am not a psychologist here, but there seems to be jealousy here and hurt feelings... [And] despite all this alleged evil, he apparently never objected or threatened to quit. He was fired. Sour grapes." To which loverman replied: "The last thing this administration needs is a sycophant like yourself, spinning the facts. McClellan resigned his post and did not get dumped." MRCOFFEECAKE also spoke up on behalf of the former press secretary: "If there is one person left who has anything good to say about Bush, that will be your expert, to whom you will all flock and keep helping [to] clean Bush's dirty diaper." On a less scatological note, scott4261 decided to give McClellan the benefit of the doubt, despite his turncoat tone in the memoir: "I'm gonna take this for what it is. McClellan may have 'found religion' like Former Defense Secretary McNamara did in the '90s. Then again, maybe not...." And newbie0420 pointed the finger elsewhere, at the hoodwinked members of the U.S. Congress: "Bush himself has already admitted some of the info they used was bad. I'd be more upset with the Rep and Dem Congress that allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes, if I were you." Meanwhile, a rash of other McClellan-related stories have come flooding in, including "Wehner: Scott's Truth vs. Reality" (91 votes, 282 comments) and "Bob Dole's scathing letter to Scott McClellan" (56 votes, 94 votes). The latter story, about a scorching denunciation from the former senator and Viagra pitchman, included this measured response from berkeley: "While Bob Dole is reacting authentically, McClellan may not be as bad as he seems."

GOING NUCLEAR

Iran, and that nation's nuclear ambitions, were back in the spotlight this week. "Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'" bagged 225 votes and 272 comments. For rimbaud, this was good news indeed: "If we don't strike Iran before Bush leaves, don't count on the Democrats to do it! Striking Iran will serve both purposes--getting McCain elected and getting regime change going in Iran." Replied dunkirk: "Why would I want to count on it?? It seems regime change was happening until the moron in the White House decided to proclaim Iran part of his axis of evil. That spurred a crackdown on the moderates and reinforced the religious wacks." This led to some interesting exchanges about oil dependency (not to mention some cartoonish images of contemporary Arab life). The next generation of cars, said Mark Stevens, would get 90 miles per gallon, reducing our reliance on foreign crude: "You begin to realize that one day the world will stop buying oil from those wacky Arabs, and they can go back to their tents and camels, and leave us alone!" Natureboy fired back: "Believe it or not, Cletus, much of the Middle East has got cities, and roads, and cars and trucks and even indoor plumbing. And beyond that, if you followed such things, you would know that much of the world has been driving fuel-efficient vehicles that get up to 80 MPG. But they don't get into the USA, nope, no sir." Another story, "Iran withholds nuclear details," generated 184 votes, 299 comments, and this skeptical snort from GWHayduke: "Let's be preemptive and take care of those non-compliant (with our mandates) Iranian dogs. It's proven to be wildly successful in the recent past." This led to a comparison of Israel's long-established nuclear program with Iran's nascent one. Dicax Maximus draw a clear line in the (literal) sand between these two antagonists: "Yes, Israel has nukes. Has never used them, even when it came extremely close to being beaten. Iran, on the other hand, is lead by a nutter with a bunch of religious morons controlling said nutter." At this point several member raised the issue of Mutual Assured Destruction: would the Iranians draw back from such an apocalyptic scenario, just as the US and the USSR had during the Cold War? BB64 wasn't so sure: "While you couldn't trust [the Soviets] on every treaty, they understood the concept of MAD. Iran has taken shots at the USA since 1979. I think the average Iranian is much like you or I, but if his government doesn't share the consequences of using nukes, who knows?"

PAIN AT THE PUMP

On yet another related note, there was "Gas roars higher, pressuring holiday travelers," with 177 votes and 109 comments. STONERS was not happy: "I'm going out soon to fill up, before the evening rush-hour traffic--I know by then they will raise it again. Sometimes I've seen it change three times in one day. This is BS!" Nor was texasangelwings: "It costs about $63 to fill my Pacifica. That is why I am thinking about traveling to visit my kids by Amtrak, [which] would cost me 40 bucks roundtrip. I am hoping that Amtrak will set up more train stations along their routes." Noted tehranchik: "Gas in Oregon is $3.90." At the risk of causing a cross-country stampede, TimALoftis replied: "It's now $3.80 at my corner station here in Georgia." Harbeas was even more blunt about the downside: "I am so sick of this oil price boondoggle. There is absolutely no justification for the current price of oil. If our government doesn't get off it dead arse and do something about it, our whole way of life is in jeopardy!" (Added Eagle Eye: "I'm so glad I have wings.") On a more jocular note, there was also "Gasoline Now More Expensive Than Heroin." For ind06, who posted the original Onion article, this cost-benefit shift was a complete win: "Not to mention that heroin will give you a buzz that's just plain nicer than mainlining gasoline!" Replied Uncle Dave: "Gasoline just hasn't been the same since they took the lead out! It's a completely different buzz!" Now remember, boys: this is your mind on drugs.

AND DON'T OVERLOOK....

The death of Academy Award winner Sydney Pollack saddened the community. "Great director and actor," said cuba1902. "He will be missed." Added DiffeeOnline: "We studied Tootsie in a filmmaking class. It was regarded by the professor as the most structurally sound comedy he'd ever critiqued." Meanwhile, "Obama Claims His Uncle Liberated Auschwitz" earned 77 votes and 174 comments, many of them from jubilant opponents of the Illinois senator. For pc25, who posted the article, Obama was "the ShamWow salesman" and "a 21st-century media-savvy carnival barker." AbuAmirah fought fire with fire, comparing the late Ronald Reagan to "a 20th-century media-savvy snake-oil salesman." Elsewhere, Propeller members sounded off about glaciers, radishes, Jimmy Carter, and the military draft. And finally, during a week with a fairly high vitriol quotient, there were some welcome moments of levity. "Itsy bitsy, teeny weeny," with 134 votes and 238 comments, probably takes the palm in this department. The video may have had more appeal to the guys (who knows?), and not many of the bikinis on display were actually yellow or polka-dotted--but it did inspire an elated, somewhat dotty conversation. Said cowboygrandpa: "Yeah! Man, what a sight for these old eyes to behold.... Makes me want to be 25 again." But perhaps GHOSTWHOWALKS said it best: "WOO WOO." And that's it until next week, folks.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Propeller Week In Review: May 23, 2008

James Marcus — 2008-05-23T14:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News

LIVING IN THE U.S.A.

This week's most extensive conversation at Propeller, with 725 comments, was generated by "I'm Proud Of My Country." The post actually directed visitors to a YouTube video assembled by the Tennessee GOP, which tweaked Michelle Obama for her lack of patriotic fervor. But the comment thread was more or less a referendum on America, with responses of every stripe. Nixie opened the conversation with a question of her own: "We live in such a wonderful country, with so many reasons to take pride in our homeland. What makes you proud to be an American?" Replied capecoralIM: "As I have driven many a mile through America, through big cities and flyover country, I have seen small towns having strawberry festivals, crawfish festivals, swamp-buggy races, local stock-car races, Little League baseball games, high-school football games, [and] city council meetings.... I feel so blessed to have been born in such a great country." But there were other responses as well, which alluded to a less idyllic picture of America. Said jordan11: "I'm proud that I didn't vote for the con in the White House, and have spoken out against him and his pals who have screwed my country. And I don't refer to my country as my 'homeland.' Too Hitlerish for me. It's the nation of my birth." A comment from david nwpa was on a similar wavelength: "Patriotism is measured in many ways. Wearing lapel pins, saluting the flag, and grandstanding are not among the ways we show pride in our nation. When we work with the poor of this nation to lift them up from poverty, we show pride. When we teach the young of this nation, we show pride." HannibalBarca, a Canadian member, put in a good word for his neighbor ("It is a great country, just as mine is"), and noted that his own work in the energy industry was keeping the U.S. supplied with oil. This got a grateful response from ranchhand: "My diesel truck loves you and so does my tractor." Then came another testimonial to the entente between the North American neighbors, from cushi: ""Had a very good friend and coworker from Montreal! She loved wrestling, and we used to go to see it at our coliseum. Her name is Joan." (Joan, are you out there? Raise your hand, please.) And finally, Wolfie2007 returned to the conversation to fiscal nuts and bolts: "The United States economy has been named the world's number one for the 15th year in a row. That makes me proud of my country."

A STRICKEN SENATOR

"Ted Kennedy has malignant brain tumor" racked up 212 votes and 290 comments. For the most part, the comments were generous, even from those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Said libsRfunny: "Given his age and the nature of the treatment, I would think this is the end of his political career. Good luck to him." Blackacereturn had only good wishes: "May god bless him. He is a great American and I wish him and his family well!" But there were those who saw a silver lining in Kennedy's illness. DebraJMSmith hoped that his advocacy for pro-choice legislation would now grind to a halt: "I am just glad to get him out of office, because of his voting for abortions, time and time again. I said one prayer for his 'salvation' in all of this.... [But] other than that, I hope the Lord keeps him from going back to his 'job' as a U.S. senator." Other members were outraged by such comments. Said tkyrchncs: "Blasphemy. You are commanded by your Savior to love. If this is an example of how you think Christians should speak or write, you do not know what a Christian is." Added tdash: "Fundamentalism is to religion as paint-by-numbers is to art." To which pianojan replied: "Let me enlighten you as to the he definition of a Christian fundamentalist. It refers to one who believes in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible." But V.O.R. turned the conversation away from theology, recalling the death of Ronald Reagan and his compassionate response to it: "I probably disagreed with his policies as much as you do Kennedy's. It was still an emotional week. Ridicule these people as we may for their politics, they are still giants of American history. They did what they felt was right and fought hard for what they believed in." (A related story, "Sen Edward Kennedy Rushed to Hospital," generated 146 votes and 166 comments.)

BUSH PILOT

Not for the first time, a clutch of stories about George W. Bush put POTUS back in the center ring. "Bush Bashers Beware," with 187 votes and 538 comments, was a tailgunning defense of the president. And yes, the conversation was a contentious one. Candida called the article "pure progaganda." AlphaGnosis, who posted the original link, fired back: "The whole gist of the article was to show that regardless of everyone trying to vilify the president, the facts were different, and that [these doubters] would one day regret doing so." But dissent predicted that not only AlphaGnosis but the publisher of the article, Investors Business Daily, would be proven wrong: "Don't worry, AG. [Investors Business Daily] will be sucking eggs along with you and the author of this article too. In that respect, at least, you're not alone." GLee rebounded to Dubya's defense: "Not afraid to make the unpopular decisions. A man's man. History will judge him well. Thanks for your service, W!" But pybo wasn't buying: "When Bush was first elected, or whatever you want to call that debacle in 2000, I thought, oh well, he's a bit of an embarrassment, and he has no class, but how much harm can he do in four years? Well, it has gone way beyond my imagination." A related story, "Biden calls Bush comments 'bullshit'," racked up 73 votes and 186 comments. Bkumm cheered on the senator from Delaware: "Awesome! Go Biden! I never thought he should be President, but he'd make someone a heck of a Secretary of Call It Like He Sees It." Another member, aniokly, defended the remarks made by Bush before the Israeli Knesset: "[Obama] is an appeaser, and that is why he was so sure President Bush had [singled] him out. Do the Democrats really think Americans believe a word that old Arab sympathizer utters?" (Putting aside the question of whether Obama is an Arab sympathizer, can a 46-year-old candidate really be called "old"?) But Lurch came to the defense of Obama and Biden alike: "Chamberlain is a tiger compared to Bush. Who let 9/11 happen on his watch despite the dire warnings, and then let OBL go from Tora Bora, and still cannot be bothered to go after the terrorist behind 9/11, USS Cole, and more?"

TILL DEATH DO US PART

"California Supreme Court approves gay marriage" bagged 170 votes, 384 comments, and this protest from tweetie08: "This world was made for men and women to get married and not [people of] the same sex getting married." Mark Stevens begged to differ: "People that are against same-sex marriage are not 'Christians,' they're just self-centered jerks. Why isn't there an outrage against adultery? That has ruined the meaning of marriage more than all the homosexual weddings could ever do!" One member, abntv, took a regional approach to the issue: "You can always count on California for a laugh. They deserve themselves." Responded NoWayMan: "Then maybe the rest of the country doesn't deserve the 1 out of every 6 federal tax dollars that [CA] provides for the entire nation." For quiescence, this was a cause for celebration, plain and simple: "I look forward to the day when marriage rights will be extended to gays in all states. To deny someone a basic human right based on their sexual orientation is not only immoral, but it is utterly inconsistent with the notions of equality intrinsic in the U.S. legal system." Replied Locky12: "Maybe you're confusing 'freedom' with 'license'." To which Tangent001 responded: "The 'freedom' to marry is assumed. The government 'licenses' marriage to ensure no harm is done by the union (e.g. the marriage of close blood relatives)." For tanglang, it was the activist approach from the bench that rubbed him the wrong way: "I would think that even the gays who would normally be happy about a victory such as this would be outraged at how the decision came about. Do we really want judges who legislate from the bench making our decisions for us?" But 1-2-Oscar argued that the court's advocacy was part of a great American tradition: "[The] courts have (properly) struck down many laws, including those which mandated racial segregation and denied equal rights to women. What we have here is simply an extension of that very valid principle to a group of citizens who do not enjoy widespread public support--but they are still citizens." Let's leave the last word to Global Warmer, who seems to consider the issue a matter of non-compatible formats: "California was pushing Beta when the rest of the country had VHS. Now this?"

AND DON'T OVERLOOK....

"Veterans peace group blocked from D.C. parade" clocked 196 votes and 257 comments. ETproductions objected to the antiwar contingent's exclusion: "Both sides have the right to free speech. Barring either side is a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. In this case, you only need to bar the opposition to the war to turn the parade into a political speech in favor of it." But joeblowe felt otherwise: "I'm with the guys that want to shut down the Iraq debacle. But I don't want them detracting from the time spent to honor those fallen in WWI or WWII or Korea or Vietnam or even those KIA in Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't really think it's appropriate." Elsewhere, Propeller members sounded off about caves, Karl Rove, and canine obedience. And this video, of Chris Matthews pummeling radio host Kevin James for his historical ignorance vis-à-vis Neville Chamberlain, occasioned a good deal of jollity in the thread. Granted, James didn't win any points for simply shouting appeasement over and over again. But as DeadXXXManXXXTalkin pointed out, there's nothing wrong with a little ignorance, as long as you're willing to admit it: "I'll show you how. I didn't know Chamberlain ceded part of [Czechoslovakia] to Hitler. I probably heard it before, and it was probably in there somewhere, [but] its current cranial location may be occupied by the roster of the '95 Indians or something." So that's where that roster went!

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Overlooked: NewsHour's Money Problems

Dakota Smith — 2008-05-23T01:40:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News, Television

Nightly PBS show The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer may be popular with Propeller Scout Corey Spring, but a New York Times story about the show's funding difficulties wasn't a hit with users. As reported by the Times earlier this week, Archer Daniels Midland--the country's leading producer of ethanol--has withdrawn its funding, ending a 14-year deal that had helped pad out the program's roughly $27 million budget.

The story went on to detail the show's difficulties in securing corporate sponsorship, Corporations "no longer sponsor public television program for purely philanthropic reasons," according to the paper; instead they prefer a more targeted, marketing approach. Overall, PBS has seen its corporate underwriting drop 40 percent in the last five years.

As a result, the budget for the NewsHour is "several million dollars short" this year, according to the paper. According to the Times, Linda Winslow, the program's executive producer, "is still figuring out new ways to operate under a budget squeeze. Open jobs, including a correspondent and a senior producer, are not being filled for now. Longer term, she is investigating partnerships, but covering the news remains her top priority, a sentiment echoed by Mr. Lehrer. 'We've always played it close to the chest financially,' he said. 'That's part of who we are, part of being in public broadcasting.'"

The show, originally conceived as the half-hour Robert MacNeil Report, first aired on New York's channel 13 (WNET) in 1975. Reporter Robert MacNeil moderated the show, while Lehrer served as the Washington correspondent. In September 1983, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour launched, and the revamped NewsHour with Jim Lehrer debuted in 1995.

Anne Bell, public relations manager for the NewsHour, tells Propeller that there has been "a lot of reaction" in the wake of the Times story. "Calls, emails, everyone from individuals and corporations, asking 'How can I help you?'"

Bells says she has been telling individuals to donate to their local PBS stations--that way, individual stations will have the funds to air the NewsHour. Needless to say, this media attention has been helpful. But as Bell points out, long-term strategies still need to be hammered out. "We are looking at all options right now," she says. "We are in discussions with PBS and foundations and we're looking at the overall strategy."

It's worth noting that the fiscal pinch isn't the result of dwindling viewers. While the award-winning NewsHour sees significantly lower ratings than the news shows of the three major networks, the broadcast does pull in about the same nightly audience as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or some of Fox's talk shows.

And NewsHour isn't the only PBS show obliged to rethink its funding strategies. "The entire landscape has changed," says Bell. "It's no longer the three networks and us. There are more and more cable television programs. Now underwriters are spreading out their advertising--it's not one charity that underwrites the program exclusively."

In an email to Overlooked, Spring explained his interest in the story: "I submitted it because I've always respected Jim Lehrer as a newsman. He is very evenhanded and just gives you the news straight, which is what a good journalist should do. It's a shame that the show is on the ropes, because journalistically, it's one of the better ones on television.... And no one knows it." Spring adds that the story's lack of traction on Propeller was somewhat predictable. "I wasn't really surprised it didn't get more votes, because PBS isn't really popular (at least in ratings) with the general public."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Propeller Week In Review: May 17, 2008

James Marcus — 2008-05-18T00:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Breaking News

MANY HAPPY RETURNS

Which story generated the most lively conversation at Propeller over the past week? That would be "Cindy McCain says she'll never release her tax returns," with 179 votes and 477 comments. Some members defended her right to privacy, including tkyrchncs: "She is a private citizen, neither candidate nor elected official, and she in no way owes the public her tax information. I assert the Republicans' right to privacy even if they don't think anybody else should have any." Glee agreed: "She is not running for office and I'm sure the 'numbers' would take our breath [away]. Good for her!" But PsychoHosebeast disagreed: "She isn't running for office? Well, not technically, but she will be living in the White House at the taxpayers' expense, traveling on the taxpayers' dime, and has sway with, in theory, the most politically powerful man on Earth." And Beau7890 speculated on why the McCains have been filing separately for the past 28 years: "She's trying to hide her mob connections through her family's beer distribution business. And that's why the two of them have always filed taxes separately--to keep that away from John."

APOLOGY FROM THE PULPIT

While John McCain's wife ducked for cover, his ecclesiastical ally offered an apology of sorts. "Televangelist John Hagee Apologizes to Catholics" bagged 125 votes and 174 comments, including this skeptical response from MRCOFFEECAKE: "So now they can get the Catholics to focus on the real issue: How much Rev. Wright is a threat... This country is one giant television commercial that never ends. Americans are constantly distracted by the irrelevant in order to forget the relevance of their vote." There was a similar response from david nwpa: "John Hagee has been running his yap for over a decade decrying the Catholic Church as a bastion of evil. He has insulted the intelligence of Catholics nationwide if he thinks this last minute mea culpa will win over the hearts of the people." Another member, brettodactyl, wondered if it wasn't time for men (or women) of the cloth to sequester themselves from the secular arena: "Truly, it is unfortunate for Christianity to be politicized as it has been lately. That's not what it's supposed to be about. In fact, I wonder if it would be best if pastors refrained from public endorsements." For palama, though, these endorsements were meaningless to begin with: "This is one Catholic who couldn't give a rat's posterior about what Hagee has to say about anything. So his recanting what he said before also means zilch to me. And none of this reflects on my perceptions of John McCain, nor does what Rev Wright has to say about anything reflect on my perceptions of Barack Obama. Loudmouthed, know-it-all, holier-than-thou preachers barely register on my sound receptors as I tune them out." A related story about Hagee and Rod Parsley racked up 84 votes and 163 comments. Tangent001 had no use for either of these high-profile evangelists, and scolded McCain for not denouncing Hagee's entire, delusionary syllabus: "Apparently it's okay that Katrina was a punishment for gays, that confrontation with Iran is necessary to bring about the End Times, and that all Muslims are commanded to kill Christians and Jews. Parsley is a whole other ball of wax. Man, that guy is a full-bore whack-job."

TRAGEDY IN SICHUAN

"Strong china quake felt as far as Thailand" generated the most votes of any story this week: 212. The comment thread included contributions from several Propeller members in the region, including imigran, in Thailand: "We've felt it and run down from the building." From Beijing, MilesAway wrote of his concern for friends in the affected area: "Both I and my wife tried to call their cell phone[s], but no answer. Also, our friend, a senior editor for [the] biggest Chinese weekly magazine here in Beijing, called a few of his reporters and only one, [who] was in another province, answered." Said blinkers: "Hope the Chinese government allows any essential assistance from international agencies, governments, NGOs, etc., full access to the affected region. In disasters like this speed is absolutely essential in providing effective relief to the survivors." And in the midst of many expressions of sympathy and support, canadianrancher57 said it best: "It is stories such as these that show how fragile we as people are. Whether it is hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards or earthquakes, these natural disasters seem to be one thing that we can never be truly prepared for, and my feelings are always the same regardless of where this happens. I can only feel sorry for those who have lost loved ones." Amen.

AND DON'T OVERLOOK....

"Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship" sparked a lengthy conversation, with 339 comments and 206 votes. For some members, the idea of a national voter ID seemed pointless--another partisan red herring--but Teagen argued that it might actually tamp down pervasive electoral fraud: "In Wisconsin, it would change leadership in many cases. There have been over 5,000 charges of voter fraud. Addresses that don't exist, people dead still voting and the like. They've actually videotaped someone buying votes with smokes. There have been cases of chartered buses from Chicago dropping off people in Milwaukee to vote. They even had 'their' name written on pieces of paper so they could remember their name. Only in liberal Milwaukee and Madison." Stories about Lebanon, Microsoft, and body art got a noisy response from the community. And then there was "Who's That Hiding In My Fox 5 News Logo?" The story produced 149 votes, 138 comments, and a spirited debate about John McCain's mysterious apparition in the network splash. Said GWHayduke: "Damn liberal media!" Asked jovial: "Subliminal messaging or a Freudian slip? You decide." But Shadowolf cried foul: "McCain don't have the legs for a Freudian slip." And that, folks, is all the news that was.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments