Joe's Munchin!

Uh. What?

Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General. Rex "I didn't ask for this" Tillerson is the Secretary of State.

I'm not sure we should even read your posts anymore.

You're this thread's very own little "paid protester." If such things exist, you be one son.

Wow.

Thanks for sharing!

The initial report came from The Wall Street Journal, so obviously no "liberal bias" :rolleyes: there.

Oh of course, of course... yes. We need to be very, very wary of the media ("Or the fake media as I often call it," Trump says, in a super classy and super subtly self-congratulatory way, as he's speaking to the fucking media), because, y'know, that crazy media exists only to prop up the left...







... Right?

I have to admit though... as someone who works in "the media," and painstakingly weighs out the content of opinion pages to make sure that they reflect both sides of an issue at pretty much all times, I am growing VERY tired of the non-stop editorializing that a lot of national publications and TV news channels are engaging in, and have been engaging in throughout the primaries and the general.

Not only is it unprincipled bullshit to load up your "news" feeds with editorials that all align with a partisan perspective (looking at you, Newsweek), it's also just providing more fodder to the right, and the folks who insist that the media is not to be trusted.

You can't beat the right when it comes to smearing and editorializing. You just can't. They're better at it. So don't engage. Or, as Pelley learned on 60 Minutes, they will beat your ass at a game they've perfected. You can have all the facts in the world on your side, but it doesn't matter. Not today. So I would urge the national pubs to report facts objectively and without "slant" of any kind.

And knock it off with the Opinion pieces for fuck's sake!

Does Nunes work for Trump? One guy thinks so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzbdcM0fbuc

Sinclair Broadcast Group (big TV station owner)173 TELEVISION STATIONS 514 CHANNELS 81 US MARKETS, mostly swing states in deal with Trump and Kushner for biased pro Trump anti-immigrant coverage)

check for your TV news at http://sbgi.net/tv-channels/

they own 2 network stations in my little town, local CBS and NBC affiliates and a total of 18 stations here. They "share" stories across their various platforms, so you will get the same fiction across multiple air, cable, radio and broadcast stations.



Look for anti immigrant reports by Leandra Bernstein (for example). Quotes Federation for Immigration Reform and the Center for Immigration Studies, both anti-immigrant hate groups, without mentioning that these sources are biased.

https://www.splcenter.org/20090201/n...es-intolerance

see also

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.36b18fd77775

and

https://www.thenation.com/article/th...s-all-at-risk/

From The Washington Post:

A Solar Saudi Arabia

Good luck over there with the coal, suckaaaas!

ironically it was Bill Clinton who signed the 1996 Telecom bill that opened the way for the Sinclairs of the country to aggregate their little mind control empires.

famous HR's

HR Geiger



HR Puffenstuff



Catbert




General "HR" McMaster

Clearly there's a war between the Bannons and the McMasters. Where do the Pillagin' Putinlovin' Kushners fit? Fuck 'em all.

 

What Good Are The Arts?
by David Byrne
04/03/2017

The Trump administration and their Republican allies hope to eliminate funding for a number of federal arts organizations. This is a political move—it really doesn’t amount to much money—it's a tiny part of the federal budget. The amount of federal funding is $741 million, which sounds like a lot, but is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the United States' annual federal spending, an amount supporters say is too small to make a difference in the budget if it was cut. On a budget pie chart it doesn't even show up, it's too small.

Q: What does that "investment" get us as a nation?—A: It gets multiplied more than 100 times= $135.2 BILLION.

The arts are considered superfluous by many and fluffy and indulgent by others—plays and projects that appear ridiculous are often held up as examples of "look where your tax dollars are going". The arts are often viewed as the provenance of the elites—"Why should we be paying for the silly amusements of other people? Stuff we have no interest in?"

Well, my argument to those skeptics has nothing to do with the quality of the artworks—I might actually agree that some of it is indulgent and silly, but I would argue that there is undeniable and indisputable monetary and social value to the nation as a whole in the publicly funded arts. It is by far one of the best investments the government can make, and here's why.

A recent study called Arts and Economic Prosperity found that nationally the non-profit arts (we're not talking about Broadway shows, pop concerts, video games, movies or the art world) generates $135.2 BILLION in economic activity in the US.

If one includes other kinds of for-profit arts organizations, the number jumps up, way up:

In 2013, the production of arts and cultural goods added more than $704 billion to the U.S. economy. This amounts to 4.23% of GDP. The arts and cultural sector contribute more to the national economy than do the construction, agriculture, mining, utilities, and travel and tourism sectors.

Here is a graphic with a similar number.



There's a halo effect as well. The real estate value of homes and businesses increases significantly around cultural centers. Developers and real estate investors understand this. An arts or cultural center increases the value of their nearby properties. Businesses—restaurants, cafes, shops—around cultural centers do better when there is an arts center close to their business. The value of real estate around culture goes up.

These effects are not just in big cities and mainly for the elites that live in them—this funding goes to small organizations across the country—in thousands of small towns and communities. To both red and blue states—they all benefit.

And that's not all—the arts also have positive effects on health, safety, education... and their presence lowers the crime and child abuse rate—all at bargain rates!

A study released this month by researchers from the School of Social Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania has revealed a quantitative relationship between the presence of cultural resources in a neighborhood and key aspects of social wellbeing, particularly in underserved neighborhoods. In New York City, the relative higher presence of cultural resources in lower-income neighborhoods is linked with serious health, safety, and education benefits. These include a 14% decrease in indicted investigations of child abuse and neglect, an 18% decrease in felony crime rate and also a 17-18% increase in the number of students scoring at the highest level on standardized Math and English tests. Other ways of making these improvements in our communities are much more expensive—and often not as effective.

One can argue that placing these kinds of metrics on the arts is unfair—not everything that makes money is good and some of the best and most influential works fail or were badly received when they were made. True.

But even so... why in the world would one want to walk away from such an incredible investment? It's probably the best investment the government makes—as far as a means of generating jobs, growth and social good... surely the businessmen and women in our government can see this and get beyond making silly political points at the expense of the nation, its economy and people.

David Byrne

NYC

I was totally flabbergasted when I saw that, Robert, I mean, jeez, this is the sonic youth board, we do demand the highest standards of grammar and punctuation. It's good it is all resolved between you and the sensitive severen.

how many insults did severen manage to combine into one paragraph? you never know what is going to trigger some of these types. it does kinda read like trainee work however.

the patriots seem to think the neocons have taken over through young kushner and the NSC. Everyone on the staff seems to be a Goldman Sachs alumni. severan and the nazi can cheer, they're gonna get their war.

Clinton said this yesterday so you saying she was blasting him is bollocks.

And did you actually, honestly believe Trump was gonna bring about a revolution? I mean at what point did you think "yeah, he's clearly a man of his word and will help bring about change"? Surely it wasn't his obsession with a good slogan like "drain the swamp" that did it?

and there goes another stiffed contractor / stiffed investor / trump u student

this is bad. that fucker launched missiles at syrian military base, even before proper independent investigation. during his campaign he frequently spoke out against meddling in syria. just words, nothing has changed. this choice is no choice! business as usual...

The problem is he was an isolationist at the start of the week.

Then he saw photos and had an emotional reaction.

So he asked some war hawks for ideas.

Then, after virtually no reflection, he executed some of the ideas.

This is not leadership. It's not even adult. Ten weeks in, this does not bode well for future foreign policy.