DISQUS

Too bad doctors aren't in charge of health care any more... insurance companies are.

Look over your policy and you'll see what I mean: chances are your insurer has final say over what is "medically necessary," not a physician.

Too bad doctors aren't in charge of health care any more... insurance companies are.

Look over your policy and you'll see what I mean: chances are your insurer has final say over what is "medically necessary," not a physician.

Errr.... 2000. Not 2009. :)

Errr.... 2000. Not 2009. :)

I have a question.

If big media's liberal bias is so pernicious, why has the GOP been actively working to let big media grow even larger and more influential?

Since President Bush took office in 2009, the Republican-led FCC has repeatedly moved to roll back a variety of media ownership limits, allowing mainstream media companies to own more outlets and wield more power. The FCC votes have always been along party lines. After the FCC votes, bills have been proposed in Congress to undo the FCC's actions, to prevent big media from getting bigger. But Republicans continue to vote against such measures, or to prevent a vote from even taking place (Hastert in 2003/4).

You're right that media has a responsibility to report the facts. But when a few huge corporations control most of our media and distort the truth, the solution is to hold their influence in check by placing limits on their power and fostering more diverse ownership with more local control. Yet time and time again, your party resists taking action and in fact advocates for the opposite.

If your party is serious about big media distortions, stop complaining and start acting.

I have a question.

If big media's liberal bias is so pernicious, why has the GOP been actively working to let big media grow even larger and more influential?

Since President Bush took office in 2009, the Republican-led FCC has repeatedly moved to roll back a variety of media ownership limits, allowing mainstream media companies to own more outlets and wield more power. The FCC votes have always been along party lines. After the FCC votes, bills have been proposed in Congress to undo the FCC's actions, to prevent big media from getting bigger. But Republicans continue to vote against such measures, or to prevent a vote from even taking place (Hastert in 2003/4).

You're right that media has a responsibility to report the facts. But when a few huge corporations control most of our media and distort the truth, the solution is to hold their influence in check by placing limits on their power and fostering more diverse ownership with more local control. Yet time and time again, your party resists taking action and in fact advocates for the opposite.

If your party is serious about big media distortions, stop complaining and start acting.

Wait, I'm confused. First you say that Obama "refuses to elaborate" on his positions and "all we've gotten from him" is America-bashing.

Then you say he's "wrong" on national security and has a "redistributionist" fiscal policy. But wait

Wait, I'm confused. First you say that Obama "refuses to elaborate" on his positions and "all we've gotten from him" is America-bashing.

Then you say he's "wrong" on national security and has a "redistributionist" fiscal policy. But wait

Wow. This one's hilarious.... they sure are grasping at straws; clearly the McCain camp has no new solutions to present

Wow. This one's hilarious.... they sure are grasping at straws; clearly the McCain camp has no new solutions to present

I think you meant to say "the largest oil reserves in the *world* belong to Saudi Arabia," not "nation."

I think you meant to say "the largest oil reserves in the *world* belong to Saudi Arabia," not "nation."

Love this piece! Though I think you could strengthen your point by citing more specifics (good heavens, did I just channel my high school English teacher?). Personally I think the constant urging to cut capital gains taxes and eliminate the estate, er, "death" tax shed a lot of insight into the attitudes of those at the top.

However, I would also argue that there's a pervasive sense of entitlement growing across all economic strata, not just among the aristocracy. I see more and more people every day who think themselves above whatever rules or barriers stand in their way. This manifests itself in the little things you see every day, like folks ignoring inconvenient traffic markings. Really, the "toddlerization" of America is pretty universal.

What differentiates those at the top is simply their ability to exert political will to actually "legitimize" those entitlements and restructure the system to guarantee their positions atop the ladder, all while minimizing risk and shaping public discourse in their favor. And that behavior, as you rightly point out, is anathema to democracy.

Love this piece! Though I think you could strengthen your point by citing more specifics (good heavens, did I just channel my high school English teacher?). Personally I think the constant urging to cut capital gains taxes and eliminate the estate, er, "death" tax shed a lot of insight into the attitudes of those at the top.

However, I would also argue that there's a pervasive sense of entitlement growing across all economic strata, not just among the aristocracy. I see more and more people every day who think themselves above whatever rules or barriers stand in their way. This manifests itself in the little things you see every day, like folks ignoring inconvenient traffic markings. Really, the "toddlerization" of America is pretty universal.

What differentiates those at the top is simply their ability to exert political will to actually "legitimize" those entitlements and restructure the system to guarantee their positions atop the ladder, all while minimizing risk and shaping public discourse in their favor. And that behavior, as you rightly point out, is anathema to democracy.

Yeah, that statement doesn't really make a lot of sense. But it's better than nothing.

As the designer behind SavetheInternet.com and a recent transplant to New Mexico, I'd like to sincerely thank you, Marjorie, for covering Net Neutrality

Yeah, that statement doesn't really make a lot of sense. But it's better than nothing.

As the designer behind SavetheInternet.com and a recent transplant to New Mexico, I'd like to sincerely thank you, Marjorie, for covering Net Neutrality

"Why isn't a convention center expansion and additional hotel space good enough?"

A fine question!

As someone who's just moved to ABQ I have to say the sprawl here and lack of significant "dense areas" (this has got to be the smallest downtown for a metro area of 800k in the country) is frustrating. I would love to see energy and effort go into bolstering downtown as a worthwhile destination.

At the same time, I don't see what functions an arena would serve, especially since there's already the Pit, right? Seems like a better convention center and hotel offerings would make Albuquerque more enticing but would avoid the money pit an arena could become. Hopefully your question will be addressed.

"Why isn't a convention center expansion and additional hotel space good enough?"

A fine question!

As someone who's just moved to ABQ I have to say the sprawl here and lack of significant "dense areas" (this has got to be the smallest downtown for a metro area of 800k in the country) is frustrating. I would love to see energy and effort go into bolstering downtown as a worthwhile destination.

At the same time, I don't see what functions an arena would serve, especially since there's already the Pit, right? Seems like a better convention center and hotel offerings would make Albuquerque more enticing but would avoid the money pit an arena could become. Hopefully your question will be addressed.