Tipping in the US is such a confusing pain in the ass, let's just build the labor costs into price of food and drinks like the rest of the world does and cut it out.
Artrogue, wow thanks for posting that site. Now I know the true depths of US idiocy and self-loathing.
Do an image search on David Helmericks if you want to see contemporary art... it is that easy. Then you decide.
I can't help myself, I kinda like the guy. Sure, he's got a skin as thick as single ply and is incessantly whining about how the citizens of Charleston (and Stephanie) are being mean to him, but at least he seems genuinely passionate about reforming the prison-industrial complex. I do wish he'd expand on the idea and talk more about reforming the unequal treatment in sentencing but I doubt he has the capacity for that sort of empathy.
The only thing Napoleon Graham is passionate about is invading other countries. Plus, I've never heard Graham quote Shakespeare. What would he quote, "Once more unto the breach, dear friends"? Or else Richard III, "And then I sigh, and with a piece of Scripture, Tell them that God bids us to do evil for good"? Or maybe even, "And though she be but little, she is fierce!"
Thomas will need to work on his justification for running as an independent challenger to Lindsey, however. It doesn't make much sense. He rightly asserts that voters deserve a better choice than the two party system offers, but unfortunately Thomas will have to make the exact same choice himself if he makes it to the Senate. He offers a false choice to the voters. What's the point of electing an independent who caucuses with the Republicans (which we can safely assume he'll do)? He'll have no power to bring legislation to the floor that would reform the prison-industrial complex. He'll have no power to negotiate across the aisle to get anything accomplished. As much as I wish we had a coalition style legislative body, we don't. He'll be 1 out of 100, and the least powerful man in the Senate. Of course, the campaign slogan practically writes itself, "Elect Thomas Ravenel Your Fearless 1%er in the US Senate"
One of the most truthful articles ever written in the City Paper. T-Rav has been in need of an intervention for years. Since his only known skills are womanizing, partying and lying, it's either Hollywood or politics for him. Having blown ( yes I said, blown) it in politics, I guess reality shows are the only thing left.
Well, the mainstream media in many ways has been very weak in its coverage of government for sure. The media is/was supposed to be a watchdog of Government. Many have been complacent due to ideological reasons. So, if Government does a study on a responsible journalistic organization that is seeking answers from an increasingly nontransparent Government what would be their conclusion?
I read everybody's post. Everyone is entitled to their opinion right wrong, it doesn't matter. There is a channel, a paper, a blogger, something somewhere from somebody that will support a particular point of view. The machine is out of control; there’s no stopping it, there's no going back, only moving on. Create a commission, a study group, research it to the hilt, and you will still be missing the point, unless you are talking about spending. One of the post mentioned Rupert Murdoch. He doesn't care about news, what is fact or fiction, where it came from; who got it is missing the point. The media cares about one thing and only one thing SELLING!!! selling diapers, selling miracle drugs, selling anti aging cream, selling cars, trucks, and testosterone supplement; not the news or politics. Commissions and study groups are created to spend more money. It is only about selling... selling anything to everyone all the time.
Flawed logic to compare illegal immigrants from another nation getting instate tuition from a state, to your parents who were legal citizens of one state who then legally moved and lived in another state, who you received in state tuition rates after residing there legally.
At the end of the day, the kids should be educated but their parents shouldn't be exploiting legal citizens to do it. Maybe their parents country of origin should be asked to subsidize them. How would you feel if your child lost his spot in college to someone whose parents came illegally and exploited the system?
IPY, you seem to believe that 'local media outlet' equals 'independent local media outlet'. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we see and hear on our local channels is determined by corporate thugs in far away places based solely on how much profit they can generate. Mat's piece is about their success in squashing any attempt to determine how 'local media outlets' determine which stories to cover. It did not mention 'monitoring'. If they wanted to monitor a news channel, all they need to do is watch it. Your anti-government rhetoric would have us all living in a Lord of the Flies society, and we all know what happened to poor Piggy. History is rife with examples of the disastrous consequences that are the result of the concentration of power. The media industry has long been on that path, and it is absolutely appropriate for the government to examine the effects.
What no video?
Thank you Mr. Pimp! Can y'all say Rupert Murdoch?
Amazing..and capitalism at its finest.
Best taco is Graze. Best deal is Graze happy hour.
Ignorance is a dangerous force....
Invasion forces typically don't leave, after trying to establish democratic republics.
If you can't see the difference between our use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan and
Putin's dream of reuniting the empire of the USSR... I suggest you focus on Thomas Ravenel and leave foreign affairs to the adults.
As far as this being a post 9-11 event...well..
.... A document cited by Ukraine in its call for “guarantees” of its protection actually is a memorandum signed in 1994 in Budapest.
The memorandum signed by President Bill Clinton, Russian Prime Minister Boris Yeltsin and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma came about following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was part.
The interim Ukrainian government has been calling on the U.S. and U.K. to honor what has been described as obligations under the 1994 memorandum to come to Ukraine’s assistance, since it upheld its end of the bargain.
The idea of intervention centered on the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed on Dec. 5, 1994, by the United States, Britain, Russia and Ukraine.
It promises to recognize Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons at the time.
The memorandum, however, isn’t a treaty but a diplomatic document that does not obligate the U.S. or Britain to go to war against Russia to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
There was no U.S. Senate action on the memorandum, which would have been required had the document been a treaty obligating the U.S. to undertake military action.
The memorandum only agrees to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. There is no enforcement mechanism to it.
Our word, as signed in the agreement under President Clinton and enforced by our current President, would appear to be worth mud.
As Moscow has begun rebuilding its military, NATO countries continue to feel the economic pinch and cannot devote money to build up their militaries as they’re required to do as NATO members. Also, the U.S. is facing a major military cutback of its own, with a trillion-dollar cut over 10 years, along with sequestration.
In recent months, the White House has announced major cuts for the Air Force, Navy and now the Army. Naval warships have been cut by more than half of the 600-ship strength during the administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Putin has read all this and sees that he has little to lose in using his military to protect his own strategic interest.
From a Russian strategic standpoint, it is essential to keep Ukraine under Russian influence and to halt the democratic wave that has swept western Ukraine.
If allowed to succeed, Putin will be concerned that such a movement will sweep into Georgia, Moldova and even pro-Russian Armenia and the Central Asian countries which Moscow sees as being in its sphere of influence.
Also, such a movement could encourage opponents in Moscow to begin chipping away at Putin’s autocratic rule, prompting a wave of democracy there with the threat of undermining his authority.
Jesus Christ, you trolls can't think for yourselves. How about a government regulation that simply prohibits any single private entity from owning X percentage of media outlets? How would that lead to government controlled content?
Oh, I know, any and all government regulations constitute a slippery slope that eventually lead to Communism, which is why that regulation was repealed in the first place.
Do you know if Kellie Jacobs artwork will be exhibited? Hope so!
You wrote, "Perhaps having an "independent third party" conduct such a study would be better in your opinion, but until private money is raised for this kind of thing, I think having the government take a look wouldn't be such a bad idea."
You couldn't be more wrong. It's a terrible idea!
That independent third party already exists. It is the consumer. If you don't think the channel you are watching is giving you the important news you need, change the channel. If none of the channels are giving you the news you need, read a newspaper. If the newspaper isn't telling you what you need, buy a different paper.
Then you continue with, "...while items that people should be concerned about (such as a new development projects, corrupt politicians or even positive community events) are rarely discussed."
It sounds like your beef is with your intellectually lazy fellow citizens, who, for whatever reason, don't really care about corrupt politicians (unless they're on a Bravo reality series), new development projects, or positive community events.
Let's say the FCC dispatches government "monitors" to study content decisions at all these stations, and they all come to the conclusion that some stories need more coverage and others need less coverage. How can they compel stations to alter their content to meet the governments agenda? Suspend their broadcast licenses? Impose fines? Are you in favor of government sponsored censorship?
Read the first amendment. It's none of the government's business what any of us say (freedom of speech) or write (freedom of the press), who we associate with, or which god we pray to.
There are already plenty of countries with government "monitored" media outlets, and I don't think I want to live in any of those places. But, I could be wrong. It might turn out that folks in North Korea and Venezuela are extremely well informed about "new development projects" and "positive community events". But probably not so much about corrupt politicians.....
And Mat never mentioned government controlling the media. He didn't have to. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understands that would be the likely outcome of allowing the government to have any opinion in the first place.
Answer this question:
If true freedom of the press means that the government can never exert any control over the content decisions of broadcasters, then why do they need to study that content in the first place? (Answer: They don't.)
Think of it this way:
If you plan on never owning a motorcycle, then why would you waste time researching motorcycle insurance rates? You wouldn't.
The fact that the FCC is interested in installing people to "monitor" content decisions should tell you all you need to know.
They're planning on buying the motorcycle....
Wake up, man.
Zia's tacos also come with the worst bar service in Charleston.
Reading it first made it sound sort of joke (like, this is tongue in cheek), but, I dunno.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper