Look, man, I'm pro-choice, myself, but... I DO have problem with them getting gov funding.
If you're a liberal, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because forcing women to bear children is flat-out wrong.
If you're a conservative, then you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because they're a fraction of the cost of prenatal care, welfare, or any number of programs that we offer for poor children.
If you're non-partisan, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because a lack of legal, affordable abortion services leads to the Kermit Gosnell's of the world popping up all over America.
Re: Re: Re: Re: They should have known he was a lawyer...
I once saw an OKC officer speeding without lights or sound. A Highway Patrolman pulled him over. It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw on a highway.
I'm sorry, it's just almost none of the things you say are true.
That's rich coming from a guy that has asserted that Planned Parenthood is primarily an abortion service and that PBS has a liberal* slant.
*I'm non-partisan.
No, PBS is not majority kids content.
Source?
And I know for a fact, that many, many, the vast majority, of families either on welfare, or in public housing, have cable.
Source?
I challenge your assertion that families limited to over-the-air TV by their incomes mostly watch PBS.
I never stated that families without cable mostly watch PBS. I stated that children without cable are more likely to watch PBS than children with cable. I stand by this postulate, but freely admit that this opinion is anecdotal.
And he also said "automatically", which means the photographer should not have to take any action to relinquish the copyright.
Hmm, we might disagree about what that term means. For instance, when I was in customer service, I automatically gave every customer a receipt, but it still took action on my part for that to happen.
I think what he means is that the photog should automatically give up that right just as I automatically gave out receipts. As a matter of course, normal, etc.
I don't share the opinion that most people will see him in that light.
That's fine. You hire him, then. However, most of the folks that I know want to see glowing reviews when we hunt for a photog, not threats of lawsuits.
Or hell, it can be a non-profit that survives on viewer contributions, that's generous I think, but fine. They're fond of saying that's where most of their funding comes from.
Wow, you are really stupid. The tagline about 'Viewers Like You' doesn't mean that 8-year-old children give their pocket money to PBS. It means that your tax money funds them.
One of the the most consistent themes of Techdirt is that government-backed monopolies for legacy business models should be done away with.
I disagree. Techdirt has a problem with government-backed monopolies for legacy business models that are interfering with innovation and/or competition. PBS and NPR (and libraries, which they've previously defended) aren't interfering with innovation or blocking competition.
In fact, you can't even call public broadcasting a monopoly, since the market has provided so much quality competition that some people believe that PBS and NPR are no longer needed. That certainly doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.
It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets.
So you think Techdirt should also support defunding prenatal care, public schools, public roads, and libraries because they can't survive the free market? That's certainly interesting.
I think you're confusing Mike Masnick's belief in what the market can do with his belief in what people should do. There is a difference, you know.
It's really not like the majority of PBS is kids programming.
Yes, actually, it is like that. Because not only is the majority of their programming for kids, but the programming with the highest viewership is for kids. No matter how you slice it, PBS is primarily a kid's channel.
If we were talking about kids programming (we were not)...
Actually, some of us were. Specifically, the justification for PBS.
...I'm relatively sure that the parents that limit their kids to PBS or other "educational" programming are the more affluent ones.
We weren't discussing parental limits, we were discussing economic limits. Children without cable generally don't have other choices. It's PBS or nothing.
Well, I guess talk shows aren't nothing exactly, but what was your childhood preference? Children's shows or soap operas?
Parents with cable choices may choose to limit their children to PBS, but why would they bother when Sprout runs children's programming - with many of the same shows - 24 hours a day?
It seems every poor family had cable and 3 TVs.
Really? Did you actually know any poor families? Because all of the poor families I knew, including my own, had one TV, local channels, and a limited amount of furniture space.
Of course, cable isn't even offered in many rural areas, so I really am unsure where you're getting these ideas from.
...I pay for it, apparently.
You pay for what? Their non-existent cable? Explain, Lucy.
No, it's less than 1% of what they do, as a whole, and many locations don't even offer abortion services, although they can generally point you in the direction of a for-profit abortion provider.
Not a single PP in my state offers abortion, but they all offer low-cost exams, birth control, and free condoms, all of which were particularly important services when I was a teenager.
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
+1
On the post: Modplan's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re:
What does this have to do with how our tax dollars are spent?
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Easy
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
If you're a liberal, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because forcing women to bear children is flat-out wrong.
If you're a conservative, then you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because they're a fraction of the cost of prenatal care, welfare, or any number of programs that we offer for poor children.
If you're non-partisan, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because a lack of legal, affordable abortion services leads to the Kermit Gosnell's of the world popping up all over America.
On the post: Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
Re:
On the post: Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Re: No way to affect the top
On the post: Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents
Re: Re: No way to affect the top
On the post: Just Because A Judge Signs A Warrant, Doesn't Make It Legal...
Re: Re: Re: Re: They should have known he was a lawyer...
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Source?
Your assertions are ridiculous on their face.
My assertions are backed up by facts. Yours seem to be backed up by partisan FUD.
Contraception constitutes over a third of their services, while STD testing and treatment takes up another third. A fifth of their services are concerned with cancer screening, and a tenth of their services concern other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility-related services.
Less than than one-twentieth of their services are abortion-related.
Now, please explain how >one-twentieth equals 'mostly'.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
That's rich coming from a guy that has asserted that Planned Parenthood is primarily an abortion service and that PBS has a liberal* slant.
*I'm non-partisan.
No, PBS is not majority kids content.
Source?
And I know for a fact, that many, many, the vast majority, of families either on welfare, or in public housing, have cable.
Source?
I challenge your assertion that families limited to over-the-air TV by their incomes mostly watch PBS.
I never stated that families without cable mostly watch PBS. I stated that children without cable are more likely to watch PBS than children with cable. I stand by this postulate, but freely admit that this opinion is anecdotal.
On the post: Photographer Demanding Cash From Sites Using Palin's Official Governor Photo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm, we might disagree about what that term means. For instance, when I was in customer service, I automatically gave every customer a receipt, but it still took action on my part for that to happen.
I think what he means is that the photog should automatically give up that right just as I automatically gave out receipts. As a matter of course, normal, etc.
On the post: Yet Another Person Sues Google Because They Don't Like Pornographic Results When People Search On Their Name
Weird.
On the post: Warner Music Takes Down Popular Star Wars Acapella Video
Re: Re:
On the post: Photographer Demanding Cash From Sites Using Palin's Official Governor Photo
Re: Re: Re:
That's fine. You hire him, then. However, most of the folks that I know want to see glowing reviews when we hunt for a photog, not threats of lawsuits.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
Wow, you are really stupid. The tagline about 'Viewers Like You' doesn't mean that 8-year-old children give their pocket money to PBS. It means that your tax money funds them.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
I disagree. Techdirt has a problem with government-backed monopolies for legacy business models that are interfering with innovation and/or competition. PBS and NPR (and libraries, which they've previously defended) aren't interfering with innovation or blocking competition.
In fact, you can't even call public broadcasting a monopoly, since the market has provided so much quality competition that some people believe that PBS and NPR are no longer needed. That certainly doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.
It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets.
So you think Techdirt should also support defunding prenatal care, public schools, public roads, and libraries because they can't survive the free market? That's certainly interesting.
I think you're confusing Mike Masnick's belief in what the market can do with his belief in what people should do. There is a difference, you know.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
Yes, actually, it is like that. Because not only is the majority of their programming for kids, but the programming with the highest viewership is for kids. No matter how you slice it, PBS is primarily a kid's channel.
If we were talking about kids programming (we were not)...
Actually, some of us were. Specifically, the justification for PBS.
...I'm relatively sure that the parents that limit their kids to PBS or other "educational" programming are the more affluent ones.
We weren't discussing parental limits, we were discussing economic limits. Children without cable generally don't have other choices. It's PBS or nothing.
Well, I guess talk shows aren't nothing exactly, but what was your childhood preference? Children's shows or soap operas?
Parents with cable choices may choose to limit their children to PBS, but why would they bother when Sprout runs children's programming - with many of the same shows - 24 hours a day?
It seems every poor family had cable and 3 TVs.
Really? Did you actually know any poor families? Because all of the poor families I knew, including my own, had one TV, local channels, and a limited amount of furniture space.
Of course, cable isn't even offered in many rural areas, so I really am unsure where you're getting these ideas from.
...I pay for it, apparently.
You pay for what? Their non-existent cable? Explain, Lucy.
On the post: Photographer Demanding Cash From Sites Using Palin's Official Governor Photo
Re: Re: Re:
...it seems like you should automatically relinquish any copyright on it.
Emphasis mine. See? It says 'should', not 'did'.
Which was my point.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
No, it's less than 1% of what they do, as a whole, and many locations don't even offer abortion services, although they can generally point you in the direction of a for-profit abortion provider.
Not a single PP in my state offers abortion, but they all offer low-cost exams, birth control, and free condoms, all of which were particularly important services when I was a teenager.
Next >>