Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (303538)	1/14/2011 9:51:07 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

Cut public broadcasting now New Congress needs to axe obsolete subsidized programming The Washington Times January 14, 2011 washingtontimes.com One of the first orders of business for the new Congress is to defund public broadcasting. Last week, Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republican, introduced legislation to do just that. He immediately came under fire from National Public Radio (NPR) for his "intrusion into the programming decision-making of America's public radio stations." To hear the taxpayer-subsidized broadcast suits talk, it's as though Mr. Lamborn was attacking the First Amendment itself. National Public Radio claims taking away federal money "would ultimately dictate the daily editorial schedules and news programs of nearly 1,000 public radio stations across America." This argument is inconsistent and unsupportable. Cutting ties to federal funds would if anything give NPR unlimited editorial freedom with no worries about government oversight. They could fire even more thoughtful people like Juan Williams without consequence, assuming there are any moderate voices still remaining in the left-leaning organization. Partisans of public broadcasting assert that taxpayer cash is necessary for the system to survive, but NPR President Vivian Schiller contends only 3 percent of her budget comes from the government. Such a miniscule cutback in hard economic times certainly should be in keeping with the public-service mandate NPR purports to pursue. It cannot simultaneously be true that the federal government supplies only a pittance of NPR funding but that such "draconian" cuts would put them out of business. If nothing else, public broadcasting needs to get its talking points straight. NPR's defense is symptomatic of its institutional sense of entitlement. Ms. Schiller is among the well-connected, liberal movers and shakers seeking to "save" journalism by bringing it increasingly under the government umbrella. The notion is that journalism cannot be sustained in the free market so the current model must be replaced with a "new public media" supported by a combination of direct federal grants, taxes on consumer electronics and advertising, fees for use of the electronic spectrum and other confiscations. Editorial control would remain in the hands of the same people currently running the public broadcasting empire, which would ensure a leftward slant with negligible intellectual diversity. There is less rationale for public broadcasting today than ever. The system is a Great Society-era big-government dinosaur. It originally was intended to bring educational and public-service programming to parts of the country that lacked access to it. Innovations over the past 40 years made up for those shortfalls, spreading television and computer information technology to even the most remote areas. This is no longer the age of the "Big Three" TV networks; educational, cultural and lifestyle programming has exploded across hundreds of cable channels. The Internet has given consumers the ability to access information in ways the '60s-era founders of public broadcasting could scarcely imagine. Congress easily could trim half a billion dollars from the federal debt by zeroing out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as Mr. Lamborn has proposed. Public-broadcasting stations, affiliates and other outlets then could compete freely for grants, donations and other funds. But liberals aren't interested in competition. They complain about the lack of competition in commercial radio (i.e. Clear Channel), but there's no such thing as competition in the government radio they prefer. The bottom line is America doesn't need public broadcasting and no longer can afford it. The First Amendment guarantees a free press, not a left-wing free ride.

To: steve harris who wrote (303538)	1/14/2011 10:46:48 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 306849

Patron admits his sites are nothing but leftwing nests. Look at this heading on his new site where he says he will ban "off-topic political discourse" and then see the leftwing political crap he condones on his phony "non-political" site. As we knew all along, Patron is a full blown lefty, promoting leftyism on his "stock trading" sites. _____________________________________________________________ Message 27095406 Patron---What are your words worth? _____________________________________________________________- This is the follow-thread to the original Residental Real Estate Crash Index (started in the summer of 2001). It will be moderated, i.e, posters that engage in ad hominem attacks, repeated off-topic political discourse or excessive violent or graphic displays of poor taste (as determine by me) will be BANNED. Message 27094042 Message 27094289 Message 27094550

To: steve harris who wrote (303538)	1/16/2011 12:39:07 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 306849

Feds threaten to sue states over union laws By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Fri Jan 14, 2011 news.yahoo.com WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections. The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing. The amendments, approved Nov. 2, have taken effect in South Dakota and Utah, and will do so soon in Arizona and South Carolina. Business and anti-union groups sought the amendments, arguing that such secrecy is necessary to protect workers against union intimidation. They are concerned that Congress might enact legislation requiring employers to allow the "card check" process for forming unions instead of secret ballot elections. In letters to the attorney general of each state, Solomon says the amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution because they conflict with employee rights laid out in the National Labor Relations Act. That clause says that when state and federal laws are at odds, federal law prevails. Solomon is asking the attorneys general in South Dakota and Utah for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional "to conserve state and federal resources." In his letter to South Carolina's attorney general, Solomon asks the state to take measures that would prevent the Legislature from ratifying the amendment. Solomon requested that Arizona's governor decline to make the amendment official. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said he believes the state is on solid ground. He plans to coordinate a response with the other three states. "If they want to bring a lawsuit, then bring it," Shurtleff said. "We believe that a secret ballot is as fundamental a right as any American has had since the beginning of this country. We want to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens." South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley also promised to "vigorously defend our South Dakota Constitution" against any federal lawsuit. Unions long have pushed for the card-check legislation, but the effort hasn't won enough support in Congress. Union officials say companies often use aggressive tactics — borderline illegal, they contend — to discourage workers from organizing unions. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that spent millions to back congressional Republicans in last year's elections, was among the groups that pushed for passage of the state amendments. Phil Kerpen, the group's vice president for policy, said the NLRB's action "shows how determined the board is to accomplish card check by backdoor means against the wishes of the American people and Congress." Kimberly Freeman Brown, executive director of the pro-union group American Rights at Work, said the board was confirming that "these initiatives were intended to restrict workers' rights to determine how they choose a union, disingenuously cloaked in the language of worker protection."